The real crime is not Burton’s. The blame lies with the JCRC Chairs and representatives
It’s been a good week for the defenders of student politics. Fresh from electing a new YUSU team, and a new squad of Student Action and RAG Officers, York’s spoilt electorate will tonight have a chance to vote on the location of the annual Summer Ball. This Extraordinary General Meeting is aptly named. It’s not every day that we are given such power, and we should wield it with care.
Matt Burton and YUSU as a whole make hundreds of decisions a month that directly affect our University life. Many are ratified by an elected Council. Others simply come to fruition, with great success. Does the Union get credit, or even recognition from the campus masses? Probably not. In this case, Burton deserves respect for realising that, this time, his opinion may not be that of the majority.
Those who are claiming foul-play and underhand politics should pipe down; their demands for a campus-wide vote have been met. Burton has realised that his plans are causing problems in the wider student body, and has taken the mature and reasoned decision to give everyone a voice. It’s not his fault that YUSU Council, a representative body, told him that campus would support his proposal. The EGM should be about Summer Ball’s location, not Burton or YUSU.
For the uneducated or over-imaginative, Council is not a insidious assembly where motions are covertly passed without discussion – at least not since the dark days of the FHM Freshers’ bag affair. Anyone can attend, although those mandated to do so often choose not to, and fail to carry out the important role that they are entrusted with: representation.
The real crime here is not Burton’s. The blame lies squarely with the JCRC Chairs and representatives who failed to engage with their colleges prior to Wednesday’s now infamous meeting. A proposal was made, and with the support of the JCRC Chairs, and thus constitutionally the JCRCs themselves, it was deemed to be ably supported. It was only after the college representatives dispersed and a few politically-charged firebrands got wind of the decision that the common student had a chance to air their views.
This is why attendance at today’s EGM, or at least a detailed read of the speeches afterwards, should be a pre-requisite for voting. This entire debacle began because the people trusted with our votes did not have the important information – such as the opinion of the college – to be able to make a truly representative decision. In essence, they failed to do their job. Now, with the great bastion of direct democracy on the cards, students can make their own choice.
I’ve not taken a stand on where Summer Ball should be held, and for a reason: I hope to be convinced by the speeches this afternoon, and strongly urge you to do the same.
Loading ...
“Those who are claiming foul-play and underhand politics should pipe down; their demands for a campus-wide vote have been met.”
“It was only after the college representatives dispersed and a few politically-charged firebrands got wind of the decision that the common student had a chance to air their views.”
To me, these two statements are slightly contradictory. It is indeed only because the less on-message attendees of the meeting have spread the word that this EGM is taking place at all. If Burton wanted to make a decision based on genuine student opinion, he would have put this to a UGM in the first place, like every other decision that is significant and directly relevant to students.
The JCRC chairs had an impossible task of balancing the wishes of graduates who want to celebrate the end of their degree in style, and first years needing some kip before exams (although, bizarrely, Big D seems immune from this latter argument), and I have a great deal of sympathy for them for that.
Perhaps the root cause is a lack of information. You say “anyone can attend” yet I, for one, had no idea (in fact, I’m still not clear even now) exactly when and where this meeting took place. We often hear of surveys that show the worrying number of people who don’t know the first thing about student democracy, including YUSU itself. Last academic year, we saw record numbers voting on a series of UGMs, but this seems to have receded again this year. If College chairs had been given the time and resources to canvass the opinions of those they represent, firstly their job would have been much easier, and secondly the decision would have had far more credibility.
“The blame lies squarely with the JCRC Chairs and representatives who failed to engage with their colleges prior to Wednesday’s now infamous meeting.”
They didn’t exactly have long! And not only that but the JCRCs have very few final-year students so aren’t exactly representatives of graduates. The reason that we elect people is so that they can make valued assessments of what they think would be best for us. Unlike us, they were in a massive discussion with other knowledgeable people (i.e. people that have held events on-campus and off-campus, people who have worked at these events and people who have even run racecourse or Club D events. Not to mention people that have been to the AU Ball and people who have been to the graduation dinner) and after an hour of discussion, and days of thought, they came to a decision.
How on earth is that a bad thing? And how on earth is it their fault? They did what they are supposed to do – take into consideration the pro’s and con’s and make a decision. And they did it.
Anon,
The agenda is made well before the meeting, and if they aren’t sure, they can postpone decision to a further meeting. Or at least abstain. I think jcrcs got this one horribly wrong. The amount of support for the racecourse surely shows that.
Joe, to say that “every decision that is significant and directly relevant to students” should go through a UGM is a little bit silly.
As a sabb I made dozens of decisions every day, all of them relevant to students, societies, the media, etc; Union Council (Exec/Senate back then) made dozens more every week -many “significant”. That is what my colleagues and I were elected to do, and it’s what you elected your current YUSU team and other Council members such as JCRC chairs for.
We could have a vote on every detail of each event: “Motion to try and book Alphabeat for Freshers’ Ball”; “Motion to have a tomato soup starter” etc etc. But as these are tactical decisions, maybe they are best left to the person or group democratically elected by the students to do that job.
As always, there is the handy back up of the EGM – used if there is a need to develop a policy on a specific issue. This has been correctly called in this case so that people can have their say in a democratic way!
Finally, JCRC Chairs and YUSU Officers DO have an impossible task. You can’t please all of the people all of the time, and what tends to happen when people disagree with a decision is that they accuse the officer of being anti-democratic, egotistical, or any other load of nonsense. Give them a break people, I promise you they are doing their best!
P.S. Please note I’m not arguing one way or the other on the venue. That is for you guys to decide now!
Sam Bayley
YUSU Socs & Comms Officer 07-08
Henry, I’m extremely disappointed with this. You’ve failed to look at the minutes or even do some fairly simple research.
If you had, you would have found that I – as Derwent College Chair and representative for many students – not only spoke openly and strongly against this motion (and then of course voted against it) in Council, I also brought this to the attention of the JCRC on Tuesday and also to the attention of many non-JCRC students; all before Council! Equally, so did others on Council.
Indeed you are correct, some did admit to not having explored their students’ opinions (thoroughly or at all), but I have to say I am extremely disappointed to be ‘tarred’ with your aggressive and overtly general brush. Perhaps some elboration is required on exactly who you believe is to be blamed; the JCRC Chairs and elected Representatives on Council are not one-the-same. We are a diverse, contrasting and often argumentative bunch who don’t always agree on subjects of mutual importance.
I was annoyed more people did not realise the views of the students they represent in this committee. I think too much belief was placed in talk about possible decorative measures and debatable benefit’s for University business. Importantly, I thought that the Welfare concerns raised, for which Sam (Langwith’s Chair) should be praised, were not discussed or resolved in any sufficient respect for a subject of such great importance.
To claim that all JCRC Chairs should be blamed is wrong. This was brought to Council too late to engage in a proper analysis of the plans. Furthermore, this sudden EGM is not a pro-active consultation of students (as should have happened); it is a reactive, last minute measure forced by students not happy with the decision or the lack of consultation they received – and good on them for doing so!
Finally, some blame does rest with individuals on Council for failing to consult with students. However, in their judgement, these plans were deemed suitable and they voted as such; this individual judgement is what should be called into question. Not a blanket blame for all.
Foy, you truly are an idiot.
p.s. My Camera is real.
Being a College Chair has always been a thankless job, but this takes the biscuit.
This article has no fact and borders on a personal attack. The college JCR role as elected by majority peers is to best represent them as seen fit. The summer ball location decision is a massive one, which is why the decision makers are opening this to a university wide forum to see the feedback of the peers, that the JCR chairs represent.
How can an article like this be written since the majority for or against hasn’t been decided and so a college JCR supporting or dismissing the change cannot be gauged as a representative decision.
Agenda published: 12:22pm on Monday.
What’s the number of JCRC meetings between Monday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon? It would be impossible to take it to the entire JCRC, the JCRC has few final year students anyway and most of the Chairs discussed the agenda item with others before the Council meeting and talked about their findings there. Sam did research into the first year exams, talked to a number of other people and came up with a long list of welfare concerns. They did what they could, mostly, and can’t really be blamed for anything that happened. The timing was unfortunate and nothing more.
“if they aren’t sure, they can postpone decision to a further meeting”
And start planning the ball midway through summer term?
“This article has no fact and borders on a personal attack”
What, like these comments? Also, Parsey, it;s not an article. It’s a comment piece. It’s opinion.
In Foy’s defence, surely JCRC chairs should have abstained if they weren’t sure of the opinion of their college, or did not have time to call a meeting?
Henry,
You make a fair point in a clumsy way.
Erik
“It’s been a good week for the defenders of student politics”
REALLY? Students getting annoyed at where their last drunken to-do is going to be counts as student politics? I disagree.
Let me make it clear, I don’t blame any students who are angry – it is their right to be so – but there is no way this can pass as student politics.
The pursuit of the trivial imbued in able rhetoric and grandstanding seen this week is not student politics. Student politics was (for good or for bad) the Disarmament Campaign, or Green Week, or the Gaza motion. Those issues received relatively low attention (see low turnout at debate on tuition fees), from a campus that suddenly demands, with sonorous words, JUSTICE on a matter ultimately quite trivial.
I substantially disagree with your claim, Henry – this week saw a catastrophic confirmation of the appalling state of student politics in York: relatively unconcerned when it comes to the substantive issues that move students the world-over, we spring to attention when what is in peril is the selfish here and now.
I completely disagree, this is student politics and democracy at it’s finest – campus getting a say on an issue that directly affects them, YUSU listening directly to students and very healthy discussion about the matter.
It’s not real politics.
I’m very interested to see what the turnout is going to be.
the problem is that elsewhere in the world, student politics is at the forefront of what you call “real politics”. This here is merely a justified squabble over the location of a Ball – not a question on whether YUSU is accountable.
To term it politics just because it causes widespread commotion is flawed.
“Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions” (Wikipedia, 2009).
Just because you think the issue is trivial does not necessarily make it so. For some people, this issue is more important to them then whether or not the University has shares in BAE.
Alexios, if that is your point, then this is a pretty ironic place to make it. the way I read it, this piece isn’t about the Ball at all – He’s questioning whether council is effective as a representative body (albeit in a bit of a haphazard way). Surely that is a question of accountability in student politics?
If there’s any justice in the world, the ball will be on campus
I blame Jason Rose
I disagree.
This IS student politics as it is people going for an issue that affects them.
The Gaza motion was politics, but got little attention as it was a waste of time. YUSU is not there to tackle international issues, it is there to represent and serve students wishes on matters that affect us, this is exactly what it is doing here.
Firstly, the EGM is a great advertisement for student politics, there was uproar at the decision and the powers that be have given students the chance to study both sides of their argument and to vote, this is democracy.
Secondly, our job is hard, and often thankless, but personally (Sam speaking) I stand by every decision I make and I should be held completely accountable. I fought to ensure that the welfare concerns were included in the proposition, and I gave my 1 minute speech today to back it at the EGM.
We, as chairs, have been abused for our decisions by friends and collegues who think the courtyard will pumping music out until 6 in the morning, or that the fair is in Goodricke car park, or that the seats will be out in the Central Hall; none of which are true.
We must be held accountable for our decisions, but we are in the position to know of all the plans for the ball. We wish others had this opportunity, and it is available now. We recieved them on Monday and people expect us to gauge the opinion of up to 1500 students (Alcuin) in two days. We tried our best, and voted accordingly, if you want to put us up as scapegoats for it, so be it.
We understood the responsibilities of the job when we ran, and we still do.
So the crux of the argument is that JCRC chairs failed to question their colleges about the issue.
Most of us couldn’t give a stuff about JCRCs. Thats why there were 30 unfilled places in just goodricke and halifax alone on the JCRC committees. Quite how my own JCRC (Halifax) can represent me better than Langwith’s or Derwent’s confuses me.
A college is just an accommodation block in which we are arbitrarily placed for the sake of admininstration and housing. Once we are off campus, apart from sports, you might as well not be in a college. Why then, do low-mandated Chairs of JCRCs still have a place on council?
Bars aside, how many college-specific union issues are there? What will my halifax rep bring to the table that the derwent one won’t? Yeah sure, heslington east will affect a few Goodricke people( those moving back onto campus), but most of us won’t be affected at all.
Colleges are not pressure groups (you choose which pressure groups to join) nor are they mini-constituencies (again, you can choose to move into or out of certain areas at will, and constituencies will have many unique concerns). I just find it odd that JCRC chairs are meant to represent the views of ‘their college’ as if the college next door is going to have completely seperate views!
College politics is a huge waste of money (nobody gives a damn enough to keep a check on expenses – cancelled holidays, overpayment for old equipment, huge losses on ents….colleges have done them all!) and really just seems to act as a springboard for a YUSU job.
As ents becomes more centralised to eventually only use the courtyard for student events, college events will struggle too. Once again i think the role of the college system is being questioned here again, and college committees really do need to work out precisely what the role of a college is. I don’t think representation on political issues / UGM issues / where to eat at summer ball is something for a few low-mandated, distant groups of friends to ‘represent’ the average student on.
Isn’t that what all ‘good’ journalists do?
Wow…. thats a very low opinion of JCRC’s… Well ‘Collegian’ in truth we do a huge amount towards keeping the colleges running, and we do it out of loyalty to our particular colleges, sacrificing a lot of our time in the process.
I’m not going to list everything we do thats passed you by, but I’ve got to say that your comment concerning Heslington East is amusing.
Sure the accommodation over there won’t have a massive impact on you personally.
There is however the matter of 600 or so freshers moving in. Guess who organizes and runs freshers week, ensures that any welfare issues are taken forward or runs socials, quiz’s, movie nights or events through their entire year?
We must be held accountable for our decisions, but we are in the position to know of all the plans for the ball. We wish others had this opportunity, and it is available now. We recieved them on Monday and people expect us to gauge the opinion of up to 1500 students (Alcuin) in two days. We tried our best, and voted accordingly, if you want to put us up as scapegoats for it, so be it.
Wholeheartedly agreed guys.
Alot of people choose York on the back of the collegiate system. The ‘colleges debate’ happened last year and I’m not going to give a rehash of it here, but provided there is centralised commitment to colleges they can be effective representative bodies. I think your points are valid and colleges arn’t the effective bodies we wish they were, but we’re fighting to try and make them more effective.
Centralisation is great, if you like bureaucratic rigid organisations, but don’t criticise ‘low mandated JCRC chairs’ for the problems the decreasing support for colleges are creating. Colleges have important issues they need representation on, believe it or not, for example read the YUSU minutes and we can be suprsingly vocal. Granted we are more for first years but thats why very few second and third years tend to vote for us, thats an accepted part of the job.
I don’t want to be a campus politician, I want to be my regular twattish self, but with an added responsibility to make Alcuin a better place, because with all due respect I don’t trust university staff to really know what students want, even less so than I’d trust any ‘low mandated JCRC chair’ to be honest. The Uni approved the plans for this before we did afterall so to think that getting rid of a student presence would address this problem is utter bull.
Buy me a drink and I’ll give the arguement a full blow for blow duke with you, or short of that why don’t you just EGM getting rid of the collegiate system? Right here, right now isn’t the time for that can of worms.
An excellent piece.
It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that the JCRC Chairs failed to even consult their colleges.
The poor turnout at many college events and, similarly, the regularity with which such events have had to close early on recent occasions, shows that these committees simply aren’t in touch with those they are meant to represent.
Like the bad workman that always blames his tools, the JCRCs blame the University administration for their inability to deliver good events. But in reality, much could be achieved with the resources already available – if the events were actually tailored to college students.
The modern purpose for a JCRC, assuming there ever was one, seems solely to be for second-year students to officially certify their ability to drink and talk big, whilst achieving nothing particularly credible.
I wonder to what extent second and third years vote on JCRC elections.
We are elected to represent and that is the best we can do. If people think that we are not doing a good job, or that we do not represent students, or that the collegiate system is failing, then get rid of it.
However in Langwith over 300 people voted on the JCRC with similar numbers in Vanbrugh. 1/3 (slightly less for van) cared enough to vote for us then we will do our best to represent them.
We run for these positions because we love our college and want to serve it for the best of our ability. We are not egotists, we don’t want to be part of YUSU, we are unpaid and just try to do our best for our colleges.
We apologise for those we misrepresent but be assured everything we do is for our students and not just YUSU.
This is why the collegiate system is vital to York.
I know that my JCR President didn’t vote the way I would have, but he’s elected to represent the views of students. I’ve voted on various Union committees where I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss the matters with the JCRC, it’s about making a judgement call, as an elected representative.
Surely the fact that we’re having this EGM to discuss a controversial motion proves that the system works. The campus media did their job of grabbing hold of the issue, and publising it. Facebook (how did we survive before it?) helped show the strength of feeling, and Matt called the EGM (something which is a credit to his stength of character and professionalism).
The biggest problem that JCRCs face is the tendancy for students to want someone else to do everything for them, but then the right to criticise the way everything is done. I cannot count the number of times I’ve been bothered at house-parties by people wanting a moan about how the college JCR is run, but ask them what they’d do differently, and they go all quiet.
Last week I was cornered (as usual at a house party) by someone demanding to know why we weren’t doing more for ‘college spirit’ but on discussion the only thing he could suggest was making sure STYC reps really pushed college spirit. As it we hadn’t thought of that. Garanteed come October he will be another one of the STYCs, trashing the college to the new students, and making the work of the next JCRC that bit more difficult.
I’m glad to be away and graduating this year. The hundred or so JCRC members across campus work very hard, with no reward, no thanks, and no respect. I garantee though, that if we were gone; you’d miss us.
“I don’t trust university staff to really know what students want”
Fair point, but isn’t the crux of this row that the JCRC Chairs failed to notice what it was that their own students want? (not claiming to know personally, but i’m gonna look at the numbers on the facebook group and make the assumption that the JCRC Chairs got it wrong, and if not completely wrong, then there is enough opposition to suggest that they perhaps should have abstained and got a little more insight from their students).
Oh and a few other things, maybe the Chairs should stop bleating and do some work. I mean, fair enough Dan Taylor has free time, but i lived with a Chair for a year and he didn’t have enough time to sit on his arse in the Courtyard and bleat. It’s a thankless job, you knew that when you started and after 9 weeks thus far what have you done that warrants thanking? What do you lot want? A fanfare for getting a decision wrong? Wait til you get panned after Freshers week, then you’ll feel hard done by.
Obviously you lot are feeling stung, but that’s what you signed up for. Sadly it seems “york student” is right, last years Chairs were visible for what they did (Oli Lester’s Accommodation video, Zach Pepper running a Freshers week in a building site, Matt Oliver getting his JCRC refurbed etc) but the Class of 09 is visibly sitting in the Courtyard doing not all that much constructive apart from flirting with each other in their little herd. No wonder our College system is struggling.
I would say that college welfare is pretty credible. Sorting out bar quizzes, film nights, events in town and on-campus, RAG, Student Action, college sports, non-alcoholic events, campaigning for college-based issues and representing the college university-wide is actually quite important as things go.
Talking big? About what?
Certifying their ability to drink? Not exactly sure what that’s supposed to mean but I don’t think that winning the RAG Parade Collection Cup, winning the Student Action competitions, winning college sports events – and finding THOSE to be the things to brag about – is exactly certifying alcoholism.
I understand the cynicism, but as with YUSU in general, people really don’t get the work that JCRCs do.
And the College Chair is voted to represent students as much as they can. As with MPs, there will be times when a judgment call is needed and the JCRC Chairs made that judgment. They did so after days of consultation, research, discussion and debate – and have been shouted down by uninformed students who think that campus is pathetic and for some reason that’s beyond me love the racecourse as a venue.
It’s in the PAST now so forget it. Vote in the EGM, thank the stars that you’re living in a democratic country where you are actually able to go to university, let alone vote on trivial things like the location of a ball, and then congratulate yourself (or console yourself) when you hear the final EGM result!
Disclaimer: I’m probably not going to go to the ball this year, don’t really mind where the event will be (since welfare concerns are already accounted for, decorations will be much of a muchness and the racecourse is as bad as the RKC) but saw the Chairs take a massive lead in debating this at Council and am really annoyed that some people accuse them of things that they are blatantly not responsible for!
Secondary disclaimer: I’m not a representative of YUSU or a member of Council. I was a non-voting attendee of Wednesday’s meeting and saw the vast majority of debate being between MJB and the College Chairs. My comments are my own.
Okay the unique Halifax issues CURRENTLY running through the JCRC (HCSA) are;
The re-design of JJ’s
The provision of gaming equipment in JJ’s
The future of the St.Lawrence computer rooms
The campaign to improve lighting on access roads to Halifax
The future of Halifax College events on/off campus
The standing of Halifax once Hes East is built.
Throughout the years there have been many others, most notably, the closure both partial and full of JJ’s; the proposed changes to the portering in Halifax; and a proposal to make Halifax into a graduate college.
The JCRC is low-mandated? 10-30% of Halifax students voted in the HCSA elections over the past five years, dependant mostly on the number of contested positions. The reason why the HCSA has a large number of positions unfilled is quite simply that there are more positions avaialble on the HCSA than nearly any other YUSU, or University committee. The HCSA represents graduate students, and student-families, unlike as far as I know any other JCR. There are also positions which are recognised by the HCSA to be redundant, but due to the failiure of a vote to abolish them continue to be on the constitution.
It was once argued all this could be done by relegating the colleges to the status of accomodation blocks and brining all college services into the YUSU framework. Of course if you want to employ a further dozen sabatical officers, with less experience of university administration, at £15000 a pop, coming out of your money, then please continue to argue for this.
But then of course college politics (I prefer administration) is “a huge waste of money”… Really? Whilst due to good management Halifax College is probably the most financially stable at the moment, none of the college JCRCS are a waste of money, and the money comes into the JCRCs in only two forms, grant money which comes out of your tuition fees regardless, and money that comes through commercial ventures, such as merchandise and events.
College JCRCs are governed by the same laws as YUSU and any other charity, so there is a limit to the amount of not giving “a damn” we can do, and YUSU audits the accounts vigourously. Being a JCRC Treasurer is NOT a fun job.
Is a JCRC position a springboard to YUSU? Well yes, and a good thing too, otherwise every new sab-team would be eaten alive by the university administration. Experience is everything, remember that most University staff will be in their jobs for the good part of a decade at least.
The HCSA works extremely hard for the causes which directly affect Halifax students. The HCSA are not paid, there are no free-bies or perks, and the vast majority will never hold a YUSU position. We do it because we care about the Halifax experience and Halifax students; but most of all, we want to leave our college a better place than when we entered it.
Kit Dixon
HCSA Vice-President 2006
HCSA Alumni Officer 2007
HCSA Treasurer 2008
HCSA College Council Representative 2009
York Uni. Graduate 2009?
I think it comes as even less of a suprise that ‘York Student’ posted anonymously.
A bad workman blames his tools and an embittered student blames his JCRC, I’d honestly like to see what your vision of the university is and how you think this university can get in touch with it’s populous.
At the end of the day people are either in or they’re out, if you don’t like your JCRC or the collegiate system live outside of it and be whoever you want to be, but at the same time don’t present this as a straw man and pretend that everyone hates colleges. Generally, in Alcuin the JCRC has a good relationship with students and I think some blame can be put on exogenous factors for a decline in college events, an old proverb is hardly a knockdown arguement.
It is this capacity for anonymity and a (percieved) lack of transparancy that gives any group a bad name, whether it be JCRC’s, Fusion, Drama Soc or sports, if people thought hard and got their facts straight it wouldn’t necessarily be the case that they’d agree that JCRC’s are the best thing ever but they’d be less quick to judge with poorly thought out comments.
At the end of the day did I manage to get the opinion of ever Alcuin student and relay it to council, no, did I even get 10% of that, no, did I sit in the library for about 10 hours doing work for my degree, which I do unsurprisingly want to pass, yes. I think consultation is great, but the consultation which has arisen in the aftermath of this event has shown how futile a chair trying to gain their JCRC’s (or more importantly their colleges) approval would have been, so maybe, just maybe people should be more considerate.
I’m not a politician, I’m a guy with shorts and fake glasses who thinks a proposal that was put to council is a good idea, and I voted then on what information I had on Alcuin’s behalf, If I got it ‘wrong’, sorry. I will be voting in the EGM on a par with everybody, not as a college char, and I will vote for a summer ball on campus.
I haven’t heard anything from my JCRC members or from my college administrator, I heard it because of the speeches today. I’m sure it’s not difficult for them to mail round to their college and get some opinions.
York student – the problem here isn’t the people on the JCRCs themselves, they are by no means bad workmen.
The problem appears to me to be that JCRCs have never been a body for political representation. As said previously, there’s no difference between the interests of derwent students and the interests of alcuin students, for example, in most matters other than maybe events.
We shouldn’t be demanding that 7 people consult with ‘their colleges’ over an issue like this. How is the consultation going to happen? Is it a consultation for people IN college, or for off-campus students too? How can we find the time to go to UGMs, lectures, labs, tutorials, sports, social activities AND whole college consultations?
It’s just not practical. JCRCs aren’t political bodies.
I can’t see how the chair of alcuin is going to come to the council with anything different than the chair of goodricke – is there anything specific to alcuin students that might make them like the racecourse? Our views should be represented by the people we ALL elect. Colleges aren’t a choice, and they shouldn’t be politicised.
Sure, attack the JCRC chairs for having huge price discrepancies in freshers’ week, attack them if events consistently flop or attack them for wasting money if it happens – they are all things under their control. But don’t attack them for not holding a consultation that couldn’t feasibly happen anyway.
It seems odd to me that people criticise the collegiate system. It’s one of the things that I always praise when talking to “wannabe-students” at open days. Colleges enables greater welfare, greater charity, more volunteering, better sport and more levels of sport. If you’re interested in football but are rubbish, you could go to college-thirds-training. Imagine what the possibility is at Manchester or somewhere… not as much, I suspect! It’s a fantastic system.
I know it’s irrelevant to the issue of the Ball but I don’t understand how blaming either the Chairs, who voted the way that they thought would help people, or the system itself will help anything.
Surely the important thing about this whole situation is that now there will be an EGM and the decision will be made by students as a whole. Surprisingly enough, the system actually works. A decision was made at Union Council and enough students didn’t agree to push for an EGM, which the Sabbatical Officer in charge of Democracy immediately declared and now there is going to be more consultation over this than could ever have been the case if all the Chairs had spent five hours running all over campus.
I’m sure the Chairs would have largely voted differently if they were blessed with the ability to look into the future, but they’re not and they didn’t, and now the student body decides as a whole. I am absolutely certain that they acted in good faith, and maybe made a mistake, but they did what they believed to be right and that’s what they’re elected to do. So they may (we shall see when the results are announced) have got it wrong, so what? The system is in place to let the students sort it out for themselves and that’s what’s happening, all good so far.
JCRCs are a vital part of this University, not everyone likes the College system and it could be better, but for those who do get/find themselves/choose to be involved it gives an opportunity to do different things and meet new people, which is what University is about, and i don’t believe that it offers any hindrance of any sort.
If people have an issue with their Chair about how they voted or anything at all they should talk to them directly, their email addresses are whichever college @yusu.org. This public demolition is kind of getting off point and we have a College system, so it’s probably for the best to try and help out the people who have to run it, they have, after all, only been in their jobs for ten weeks.
Sam and Dani, Vanbrugh had 444 votes cast, which i think is nearly 40% of the College, that’s a better turn out that just about every other student election ever, so whilst Dani’s getting slated she did win an election with a huge turnout. I really REALLY hate to agree with Jason Rose, but the EGM is running, so let it happen, though i’m not sure how he’d know about bragging rights over Student Action etc, cos I think he’s from Langwith and ‘they don’t win nuffin’, still, I suppose they can at least look to their neighbours to see how it’s done
Anyway, on that cringeworthy note of College ‘banter’, every student is now in a position to make their voices heard, i’m sure mistakes have been made, you’d have to ask the Chairs if they would vote differently given another chance, but at least they were doing what they thought was right, so give it a rest.
What a ridiculous post. You freely admit to not knowing the facts, yet feel perfectly free to declare that the collegiate system is struggling and that all the chairs are off flirting with each other and not actually doing their jobs.
Who are you to say that the JCRC chairs got it wrong? I don’t doubt that the JCRC chairs consulted students before casting their vote. That the people they asked supported the motion does not make them wrong, lazy or failing in their responsibilities.
And from what I see, they are not ‘bleating’ or looking for a ‘fanfare’. They seem to be standing by their decisions, explaining their actions and seem willing to be held accountable. It shocks me that you can so freely judge the Chairs when you claim to have lived with one and have seen the strain it causes.
Finally, to compare the Chairs of ’09 to last year’s after only 9 weeks on the job is just plain idiocy, especially as you seem to have some sort of rose-tinted view of last year’s lot.
Lol, Matt. RAG Collection Cup though?
Anyway, I’m not so sure that the college chairs would change their vote with hindsight. Maybe they would call for an EGM on it, with hindsight, but I suspect that most of the chairs still hold the opinion that they did on Wednesday afternoon. Maybe we’ll never know
Collegian makes a good point, although I don’t think you realised it. JCRCs have nothing to do with politics. They are administrative bodies only. I cannot honestly say that in my 4 years on the Halifax JCRC (HCSA) my belief in the primacy of capitalism, the importance of defeating despotism, or the evils of isolationism, have ever affected a single decision I took. Being a member of the HCSA was about having a clear moral compass, and a high standard of ethics.
The (much revised) YUSU constitution remains a mess, trying to balance the political with the technical. The problem as I see it stems from an out-dated view of the role of the Students Union. A modern students union, should have a clear seperation of political and administrative agendas. This is an argument which comes strangely to a believer in small governence such as me, but is the only way to satisfy the competing agendas.
The small governance argument would go that, it is arguable that the Summerball motion sould be a joint decision of the President (as a representative of democracy), the Services Officer (as the person who approves the funding of the event), the Ents Officer (who organises the event), and the Welfare Officer (who ensures that the events do not infringe of the welfare of students)
However the plan has obvious issues for the students who are (unfortunatly) living in Langwith or Derwent; but should their views not be held above those of the average student?
This is the complex and imperfect world of the YUSU constitution.
My major concern about the recent consitutional changes, was, and is, the role of the President? If they are not in charge of Democracy, Services, Communications, or Welfare, then what exactly is their role? It would seem that we’ve demoted the role of President to that of a figure head of the Union, which did we have George Dubwya may be a good thing, but if this years elections proved one thing, then it was that the people who wanted to be president were a capable bunch. Societies & Activities, and Democracy & Services, have dominated the past year of YUSU administration. The Union needs a President with the personality, the mandate, and the consitutional power, to lead the Union.
It was once said that the only way to have perfect democracy was to have one-man-one-vote, where there was one man, with that one vote. Whilst a gladitorial contest between Jason Rose, Dan Taylor, and myself might well ensure a greater turn-out than the YUSU elections, I’ll settle for imperfect democracy.
Todays EGM was a perfect example of imperfect democracy achieving the correct result. We don’t know which perspective has come to the fore, but it is the preference of York students. MJB knows that whatever the result the night will be a sell-out; I for one will be buying a ticket regardless. I know that most people reading comments like this will think we’re all a bit up ourselves, but we are because we care; and that matters.
Freya, you say the ‘chairs failed to notice what their students want’, due to the manner in which I conducted my reasearch pre-council (just going and discussing the merits of a campus ball with people in terms of a friendly debate) the oppinion I recieved was generally of the ‘I didn’t like it before, but now I think it’s quite a good idea’.
Sure enough, many students couldn’t be swayed, but I entered council with the belief that after proper fair consultation a majority of students questioned were in favour of the proposal. This is why a facebook group of 900 odd people isn’t enough to make me regret my vote, a majority of these people are not going to have been subjected to an intensive discussion and so don’t I feel represent the merits of the proposal.
Abstention therefore is not an option, this is even more negligent as quite simply this would mean neglecting the oppions of an informed minority. Engaging 1500 students to the necessary level of debate is not an option, attempts to do this online/through email as suggested elsewhere, arn’t going to provide a constuctive forum for debate they will simply reveal large diatribes like these in which a seeming gap in the arguement will appear which will then be attacked, they arn’t as fluid and therefore not as useful as actually talking to people about it.
Your second paragraph is actually so ridiculous that I think you should feel ashamed for writing it, but I will give it the attention it does not deserve regardless. I knew this job would be thankless but I did it because I wanted to improve Alcuin for it’s students, unbelievably though this isn’t something that I do all day every day, I think about it a hell of alot and I work towards it a hell of a lot, but I feel that on the last day of term, after my last lecture I deserve to sit in the courtyard (because B.henry’s was no longer open) and have a drink with friends (Sam and I went to school together and Dani is a good friend) it’s not like we do this all day every day and I honestly think that you need to grow up.
You ask 3 questions and despite them being obviously rhetorical I will answer them to hopefully make you feel stupid.
1) What have you done thus far…?
-Worked with my vice chair welfare to get our JCRC redecorated.
-Worked with my vice chair services to put on around 18 bar events this term, 3 socials and two late licenses (the most we could do)
-Wasted many an hour trying to push for a sustainable future for B.Henry’s so the next person to take on this thankless task doesn’t get dumped in the middle of an absolute fiasco.
-Worked with my secretary in our treasurers absence to complete our YUSU grant application and get Alcuin the largest portion of the grant money.
-Worked to try and improve the quantity and quality of welfare events.
-Designed all of Alcuins Posters until we elected Comms Reps
-Reorganised the Equipment cupboard and fixed the JCRC equipment back to working order in the absence of equipment reps
-Gone to a lot of meetings and pushed for services provision for students
-Really annoyed Phil Kember.
2) What do you lot want?
-More Shorts
-Time to sleep
-To improve the collegiate experience for college students so they don’t have abismal start to university like I did
-Fewer people calling for my blood
-People to realise that I am up at 4:25 in the morning because I have to be, not because I want to be, I only manage to get some quality fun time because I’m running myself thin
-People not to refer to me as ‘Alcuin Chair’
3) A fanfare for getting a decision wrong?
-A fanfare for trying to judge things on a rationally justifiable (given all information present and avaliable to me at the time) basis, will suffice.
-People to realise the subjectivity of the word ‘wrong’
Your final paragraph, whilst less insulting is equally retarded, so I will not address it in any real depth. The collegiate system is stuggling because of disenfranchised students who, once lost, cannot easily be won back. After falling through this gap they spread negative sentiments, on public forums mostly instead of through more appropriate channels which might limitate damage, and cause the college system to weaken, the university then weakens the college furthur and the cycle continues ad infinatum until the college system is percieved as struggling and it’s all too late.
Look, I only sit here and waste my life typing because I care and I only call you an idiot or whatever I call you because I don’t feel like I need to lick the ass of someone who clearly doesn’t seem to have enough respect to engage in some forethought prior to typing.
Now luckily, most college chairs arn’t as stupid as me and won’t reply so franktly, a move which at the end of the day summounts to shooting yourself in the foot in the current climate. People who know me will generally stick up for me, because they know what really matters to me, I clearly don’t expect every stranger to be in this position, but then again I clearly don’t expect strangers to have the audacity to assume why I have acted in the way I have. This is why I felt justified in calling Foy an idiot earlier, he doesn’t know me personally and I know the same is true for at least some of the other chairs, he wasn’t at the council and he doesn’t appear to have read the minutes. He has a right to post a comment piece but in the same way I have the right to call him if I think his comment is ridiculous and in this instance I honestly think it is.
If you want to realise that I’m not just a prat facebook me and I’ll go for a drink with you, but until you’ve done that don’t expect me to sit down and take it up the ass.
There is generally a delay of a day or so, depending on when you can email the information to your college administrator.
Regular attempts to contact students fail, when impersonal and easy to ignore methods are used, even when the issues of the uptmost importance are raised.
To think that emailing around in this instance would have been any differant/more effective when we got the motions about 48 hours in advance is probably a pipedream.
As a quick reply, since Goodricke, Langwith and Derwent are all most central to this event it is likely that they will have concerns for their space that a college like Alcuin won’t. So for an Alcuinite is might be easy to say, the plans are fantastic wheras Goodrickers or Langwithians are more likely to have more concerns and reasons to think it isn’t.
At the end of the day, difficult decisions will always end up involving a divide, it’s implicit in the statement, a decision would be easy otherwise. In the university of York, colleges happen to represent one of these sub-groups. As an analogy would you claim that there should be an academic rep exclusively for all subjects as opposed to board of studies reps and an academic rep? surely you recognise that the academic concerns of an economics student will be wildly differant to those of a chemist, surely representing these groups with people from them is a great way to ensure representation, particularly if it is at no cost?
I agree it’s difficult to see how our concerns will be differant on alot of issues, on wider issues there will be more convergance for example, but when we are talking about a localised issue differences are more likely to arise. For example (not to make assumptions about Joe’s motives) but Derwent were the only college to vote against in council and funnily enough they are the college that has a large amount of money running on an event the next day, which all of a sudden has some unexpected competition on it’s doorstep which may jepordise this, dress it up as you will (I fail to accept that the decision made was based upon welfare concerns, given they are just as prominent with Big D) the decision would appear to be made largely on the back of a specific college issue and thats the way it should be in chairdom and I respect Joe’s decision to vote against because I can understand some motivations for it.
Joe, just as you are disappointed in Henry, I am disappointed by you.
It’s fine to say, when you vote for a motion that is supported by a majority, that you’ve done the ‘right’ thing. I would however, be far more sceptical of even implying that those who vote against a majority have done ‘wrong’.
In trying to represent our colleges we think with their specific interests in mind, but we cannot base our decisions purely on this. To give an extreme example, a man who represented a group of ill-informed individuals who wanted to persecute another individual for their religious beliefs, would be praised if he ignored the views of his ‘electorate’ and let the man go. If I have sufficient reason to believe that the students I represent do not sufficiently understand the plans in question enough to judge it, and that the students who I fairly describe the plans to (thus providing them with sufficient understanding) often altered their oppinion, I have a reason to vote in a way that may not appear to be ‘right’ by a majority. This does not however make it ipso facto wrong.
I feel your decision to say that some blame does rest on individuals, is tantamount to claiming that some of those who were involved in the council debate did not sufficiently understand the issues in question. I felt whilst participating in that debate that we all had a very good grasp of the situation, but we, like you, as derwent chair, must understand that people voting differantly to you is not the same as someone being wrong, everyone in that room can rationally justify their opinion on the event. Some of the unquantifiable issues such as whether ‘welfare provisions can be made’, will cause us to be in notional confrontation with each other and thats a danger in that it will put us at loggerheads with each other. However as long as our decisions are made from the right sentiment, they cannot be wrong in anything but hindsight. I believe every decision in that room was justified, whether they agreed with me or not, we should stick up for our fellow elected representatives, unless you are willing to say that you honestly feel that an individual, given their unique set of concerns was wrong to vote as they did, and call for no blame to be put on the union.
We must encourage this EGM and welcome it, and we must strive to ensure that members of our elected body vote in full knowledge of the event free of as much rhetoric and spin as possible and with the facts of how it will effect them in mind. I understand that you imparticularly, feel that the role is one of representation, but I think you should realise that representation is not mere facilitation of opinion, it is trying to improve the knowledge of those you represent so that when you do represent them you do so as united as possible.
In the short time frame we were given that simply was not possible, especially when we have to juggle 80 credits as well, and the attempts made by all the college chairs in the run up to council should be praised, because without them colleges would have been even less repsented than they were. Even if you feel your college chair voted in a manner you would not approve of, if you trust that they put the legwork in, which I can assure you, we did, I don’t see how you can feel that placing the blame on us is the correct thing to do, as a matter of fact I don’t even see where blame of the sort we are talking here enters into the equation at all.
One final interesting note before I hit the bath and then bed (6:21, not a bad time to start thinking about making this move), The Nouse poll, currently suggests that we perhaps shouldn’t be blamed atall (something like 36% Campus, 35% Racecourse 29% elsewhere).
Is it just me, or is it exceptionally difficult to judge public oppinion?
Perhaps there is a lesson to learn in all of this.
Check the constitution – point 17.1 in the articles and 5.10 in the schedules.
Articles: http://www.yusu.org/uploads/union2/articles.pdf
Schedules: http://www.yusu.org/uploads/union2/schedules.pdf
There’s stuff about what the President does in there!
I would say that the President’s chief job was representation, since s/he is the person that sits on university committees, has to attend NUS conferences etc. etc. but I guess it depends on how you read the above constitution.
And yes, in response to Collegian and other comments – the non-political thing is a point. How is a JCRC Chair supposed to represent their college on this issue? Langwith, Goodricke and Derwent will be the ones affected – and maybe Vanbrugh – so it’s good to see that they raise important points. Langwith will be central to the event and the Langwith Chair raised welfare concerns. Derwent has Big D the following day and the Derwent Chair raised those concerns. That’s what their job is and that’s what they did – how is it that they’re being blamed for that?!
Freya, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.
Lets look at what I’ve done so far in 9 weeks:
- Organised the showing of the 6 Nations in Derwent Bar, arranging for the bar to be open and even fighting for it to be open on Sundays; to serve the drinks deals I agreed.
- Pressured the bar and catering to improve it’s service, and as from next term, Derwent Bar will have a subscription to the major daily news papers as just one improvement.
- Agreed and planned the refurbishment of Derwent JCR, including a consultation meeting with students, publicised greatly and yet poorly attended. Work to take place over Easter and into Summer term.
- Held 3 successful Club D’s, of which 2 were near sell outs and 1 could have sold another 100 tickets.
- Helped Derwent’s great RAG reps where ever I could with our fantastic RAG parade.
and what’s on going…
- Organising a memorial service, as well as other things, to properly respect and thank our late Provost, Dr Ron Weir. This will hopefully be in Central Hall, and will be widely attended by family, friends, colleagues and current and former students.
- Helping where I can with Big D (officially Vice-Chairs job), which is going to be amazing.
- Still working to improve the accomodation problems in Eden’s court; so far we’ve agreed future works (summer holidays) to put the mould and damp problem right. Now I’m chasing proper cleaning to remove mould currently present.
… I could go on.
And this is just a small selection of things I, as Derwent Chair, got upto over the last 9 weeks and will continue to work on in the coming weeks.
I know that each of the other Chairs/Presidents have similar or different, yet all challenging, issues and tasks to take on. Perhaps you could do better?
I’m going to “stop bleating” now and get on with some work (voluntary, difficult and entirely enjoyable!) …
Lets have 2 balls.
One for anyone who wants a posh, overpriced night out at the racecourse, and one for anyone who wants to get hammered on the cheap, make a spectacle of themselves and spew their guts out in the lake.
I’ll be at the latter.
The amount of humbug in this post, wrapped-up in rhetoric, was almost unbearable.
If I invented a time machine, then maybe we could put your skills to good use in the roman senate. You’d have to learn latin, but that’s possible. Hypothetically, you’d might even do well.
Wondering why this is even here? We’re partners in crime I’m afraid
(and no that’s not the same as saying tu quoque).
I fail to see how your post addresses any of the issues in my post, it simply dismisses my claims on some base term, which doesn’t even appear to be forthcoming. So what if it’s rhetoric, Hobbes used rhetoric extensively, despite dismissing it’s use, are you going to use this arguement to dismiss the ideas and sentiments of the ‘leviathan’?
Unless we adopt an entirely logical language, I fail to see how your seeming problems with my post (or any other on this page to be honest) will be adressed.
I feel I make a valid point that as elected officials you are here to represent, but representation is not necessarily just the facilitation of oppinion.
Anyway, I’m glad to see that my post has been dismissed for using language to effectively put across the points contained within.
If you wish to be taken seriously, actually levy a charge against me and what I said and don’t post as anonymous. We’re all friends here, don’t be a stranger.
At the end of the day, I get on with Joe, my disagreement with him here is mostly ideological. I feel that is a let down to see Joe merely covering his own hide when there are clearly reasons for us to all defend the process by which the decision was made, unless we want to completely undermind council and those in it. I feel that if the people in council, actively feel that blame lies on other members of council that votes of no confidence on those members are the way forward, you can’t simply dismiss someone because you don’t like their oppinion.
Now as hilarious as your post was and as flattering as it is to be told that ‘you would might even do well’ I think I’m going to go to the library.
You can happily go that if thats the last memory you want your peers will have of you before you leave.
Yes the racecourse is an awful venue but it provides us a different venue in which all graduates can see each other and have a final discussion before they leave.
The fact is that the campus event will be an access all areas type event with people split up all over campus queing for different bars as the capacities are very low.
Based on those figures, Oliver, almost two thirds of students want the Ball to be held somewhere other than campus. And, apologies for labouring the point, but a vote against the EGM is not a vote FOR the racecourse, but merely a vote against CAMPUS – which, on this evidence, will prevail. Then the options are open, and the opportunity is there for a debate – albeit largely from afar during the vacation – about the sort of Ball we want.
“Yes the racecourse is an awful venue but it provides us a different venue in which all graduates can see each other and have a final discussion before they leave.”
Why do graduates need a different venue, completely unconnected with their university experience, in order to see each other and have a final discussion? I’m sure they could do those things on campus with ease.
All the arguments against holding it on campus simply boil down to whether we trust YUSU to make it a magical night.
Welfare issues are catered for in the EGM, and all other arguments people are throwing around simply imply that campus cannot be made to look as good as the racecourse. However with the right money and ideas it could be made to look better than the racecourse, which let’s face it isn’t anything spectacular.
Burton says he can make it an amazing night and make the place look good – I think we should have confidence in him, we elected him to do a job and he’s done it well so far, if he says he can pull it off then let him.
“So what if it’s rhetoric, Hobbes used rhetoric extensively, despite dismissing it’s use, are you going to use this arguement to dismiss the ideas and sentiments of the ‘leviathan’?”
Hobbes was not writing in the 21st century. There is a difference between rhetoric used for good writing style and rhetoric used to cover the absence of real substance. I am not saying that your post lacked substance, but that when you lay on the rhetorical gloss too thickly it invokes suspicion. I am also not saying that Hobbes had a good writing style.
Actually, I dismiss much of Hobbes’ Leviathan because I do not believe that anarchy leads necessarily to a state of nature. For this reason I do not think that anarchy means chaos.
I posted the last comment for comedy value admittedly, but your message could have been said in 1 line. Indeed you do so here:
” I feel I make a valid point that as elected officials you are here to represent, but representation is not necessarily just the facilitation of oppinion.”
The point of the joke, if not my post was:
1) do not be rhetorical and vague
2) do not introduce unnecessary thought experiments
And of course if my demands are not met, you will arrested at dawn by the anonymous police.
Salve.
Why do graduates need a different venue, completely unconnected with their university experience, in order to see each other and have a final discussion? I’m sure they could do those things on campus with ease.
Your obviously missing my point. All graduates can get into the racecourse, walk around and can see each other with no barriers such as queing, walking across campus etc.
People are busy so just saying ‘they could do it on campus with ease’ is something that people shouldnt have to do, as the purpose of the final ball is to put all the people graduating together so they dont have to organise meetings. I probably have more than two friends like you so it would prove impossible to see them all on campus before I leave.
Having experienced the past two summer balls, and campus events in general I think you will be in for quite a shock on the night. Yes it may look nice, or better than the racecourse but why should I have to eat in a venue not big enough for all graduates, then queue for 45 mins to get into a bar to see the acts or my friends. Every big D and access all areas people waste large chunks of the night queing to get into the respective venues. At the racecourse everyone is already inside, and if the dancefloor is too busy you can at least get a drink.
Another problem is with campus being such a large area, people who havent bought tickets can easily involve themselves with the event. It would be impossible to police. This would be mean people wont be able to take their drinks outside etc as they could supply alcohol to those who have not bought a ticket.
I think that there are many issues that people keep overlooking, more than the way it looks.
To ‘ANON’
Nice of you to share your name. If that is any of my ‘peers’ last memory of me then clearly I don’t care enough about them to keep in contact. Grad ball is a party, not a goodbye ceremony.
Common sense prevailed. It will not be held on campus. Thank God for that.
Thats fine Joe, but the racecourse really is the only other tenable venue at this point in time (other options were unsuprisingly looked into) and even fewer people (according to the nouse poll) wanted that.
If Matt hadn’t stepped up and proposed the EGM first, someone else would have and if the wording of the proposal was the other way I would be able to pull the exact numerical trick and claim a majority were against the racecourse, so it’s hardly conclusive.
My point was merely and will remain, that a poll taken has provided us with split results. Incidentally these do not reflect the final voting pattern, so why should we think that a consultative process that JCRC chairs or other representatives initiated would turn out any more accurate.
Plus even if we had gathered this sort of data it is not conclusive. There is a numerical case in favour of supporting the EGM there, if we realise that the ‘other’ option is not a realistic one then campus is the preferred venue and another case against in that a majority are not for it.
I have two main thoughts regarding this issue.
Firstly, I agree with what Sam Bayley stated much earlier on in this discussion. It’s impossible for Sabbatical officers to make the right decision on every single occasion they act. They do try their best and we should not immediately point the finger at an officer who has, while making a mistake, always had the best interests of students in mind. Furthermore, it is impractical to use a UGM on each occasion a decision has to be made; such a process would be extremely time consuming and inefficient.
However, secondly, I think this vote has been a success, but not because of the result. What it has done is illustrate just how well EGMs can right mistakes if they are used properly. Regardless of whether I think the ball should be held at either the racecourse or on campus, I am pleased that students have been able to intervene and effectively make a decision using an established Union process.
“Thats fine Joe, but the racecourse really is the only other tenable venue at this point in time (other options were unsuprisingly looked into) and even fewer people (according to the nouse poll) wanted that.”
Oliver, I’m not ready to believe that campus and the racecourse are the only two venues in York.
What’s wrong with the others?
Are they ruled out because of cost or size?
Possibly both. I like the Anonymous suggestion on the newer news post about using the NRM. Eating a meal, getting pissed and dancing to Lemar next to some of the world’s finest works of engineering = the unique experience many of the opponents to the motion want!
I’m pretty sure as Chris said they are ruled out due to size (mostly) and cost (less likely).
York just isn’t a big place, in the last few years the summer ball has aimed for 2000 – 3000 tickets being sold.
My impression was that the NRM is a fairly small venue, I believe Halifax had a ball there. We’re looking into our college ball now and whilst there is more choice for 200 person capacity venues it’s still suprisingly difficult.
Places that are ruled out on cost are generally quite far out of York such as Castle Howard and the Air Hangar, I believe.
Who knows what they will consider, but given there is a deposit on the racecourse I wouldn’t have thought that they will necessarily put too much time into a new search, time is pressing afterall.