Another reason why this publication is a joke.

Either way, Nouse was acting in the same way as many societies and didn’t think it was behaving out of order, so it’s not really a scandal. Of course, I agree completely with the points that they’d report it as a scandal if it was any other institution so I’m very much expecting to read a totally over-the-top story in Vision about it: and I’m sure that they’ll enjoy writing one

I very much doubt whether the people above are actually that bothered about it and I agree with the Editor that topics like this (and like Lewis’ discussion in the other thread) aren’t relevant… it’s up to the administration in question as to how much they moderate but hopefully after this thread we won’t see any double-standards. I think that the team should draw a line in the sand and move on. There are lots of strengths and in-fighting will just damage York media! Nouse has an opportunity to grow stronger with a great team and they should do just that

Dear Editor,

Can I ask why, on Monday 16th November, you made the decision that posts regarding the Nouse elections would be moderated out from appearing on the story about the GSA elections? This seems rather contradictory whilst allowing a massive debate about Lewis Bretts on an article to do with RAG beneficiary elections.

It seems to me to be a case of massive double standards. Not least, for a publication that has prided itself on non-censorship – in particular shouting about YUSU Officers pulling items from the paper on grounds of student welfare.

Would Nouse therefore like to clarify their position on the issue of freedom of debate?

…a constitution which includes:
3.3.1.c) regulations stating that non-student members cannot vote and may not hold office

From the articles:

“18.1. Clubs and Societies may be recognised by the Union provided they meet the requirements of ratification and do not contravene the Union’s aims and objectives or equal opportunities policy.”

“Recognition of” is not equal to “a constituent part of”

“8.2 [...] Only ordinary members shall be entitled to speak and vote at Union meetings, stand and vote in Union elections and hold office in clubs and societies.”

The restriction there is to *holding office*, not being a member of. This also backs up my assertion above. If society elections were considered Union elections, then why does the constitution consider them separately?

Many societies actually do have non-students as members – I know people in Dance Soc who were locals who came for the lessons (and were society members) as well as people in some of the musical societies. This isn’t uncommon. I was, for a year, a member of Oxford University’s Salsa Society.

And the only thing in the schedules referring to society elections.

“3.5.8. Election rules require candidates to leave the room and Single Transferable Voting to take place”

I can’t see anything regarding special election rules for signatories or anything saying that society membership is exclusive to ordinary/affiliate/reciprocal members (which, by the way, I am).

>> I can’t help but think one of the edits you made to your original post was aimed at me…

Which edit in particular are you referring to?

If the GSA had let people who’d already graduated vote in an election, Nouse would have slammed them (again). I hope Vision picks up on this
story, they’re going to have a field day!

Ex-students, by default, are not members of YUSU. They can apply to be associate members (have you?) which allows them to join societies, etc but not have a say in any form of democracy, allocation of funds, etc These are legally introduced and pan-SU enforced restrictions

Union democracy, which I believe is democracy for all levels of the union, is restricted to Ordinary members only.

If the Editor is a signatory of the accounts, and as a result has access to YUSU grant money, then the legal restrictions on who can elect that person are stricter and (as far as I am aware) limit voting to ordinary members of the union only.

I’m presuming you’re aiming that at me. There’s nothing in the YUSU constitution banning non-York students from joining societies – only from holding positions in them. And the Nouse constitution doesn’t mention it either – I fail to see why it’s an issue. And as far as I’m aware, everyone in the room was a society member – there was someone on the door checking membership and getting people to pay up if they hadn’t.

The elections were done completely above board – Tim Ngwena even attended the elections (at least for the senior positions) to make sure it was all kosher and made no objections at the time.

Rumour also has it that ex-York students were voting too. I’m all for ex-students commenting on Nouse.co.uk but voting at Nouse elections? I don’t see how the results can stand when the margin of victory for Editor was so small.

Can you imagine the Nouse headline if YUSU/ISA/GSA/a College JCRC made the same kind of mistake and then tried to stop the papers from printing it?

From what I hear, the recent Nouse elections were a complete sham. Apparently people who were not members of the society were allowed to vote for committee positions (breaking Nouse’s constitution).

Is this true?

I was merely trying to hold Nouse to account in the same way they hold every other part of York to account. It is so hypocritical for you to edit my comment when you look at the many articles Nouse journalists have produced which have far less of a factual origin than mine.

Remember what you have done next time you moan to YUSU about them asking you to take something out of the paper.

Comment edited by a moderator