Ructions
In the summer of 2004, YSTV went through much upheaval when the newly elected Station Director was subjected to a vote of no-confidence just weeks after his election. The series of events became known by some as 'Ructions' after an initial email regarding the dispute which triggered the problems was sent with the title "Prepare for ructions". The story goes something like this...
IMPORTANT: The initial writing of this article was done by Rowan de Pomerai. I probably know more about the string of events than just about anyone else, however it will rightly be pointed out that since this all lead to me becoming station director, my impartiality could be doubted. I have done my very best to ensure that this article is a statement of facts and nothing more, however I do invite others who were there at the time to correct or contradict me if they feel appropriate.
ARTICLE LOCK: It's going to take me a little while to write this I think, so until that time, I have locked the article. Admins may edit it, but I didn't want to open it up to general editing until I've finished. To avoid too many people reading this until it's finished, I have not linked to this page from anywhere else, and I urge you not to either.
The 2004 Committee Elections
Leading up to the YSTV committee elections in 2004, there were 3 friends, all fairly new to YSTV, who were considering team leader or station director roles. They were Jen Ayerst, James Flinders and Rowan de Pomerai. Rowan briefly thought about standing for Production Director, Studio Manager or Station Director. As Jen stood for Production Director, Rowan went for Studio Manager and James for Station Director. Jen's production interests made this the logical position for her, and while Rowan considered SD, he decided against on the basis that (a) James wanted to run and wasn't so keen on Studio Manager, and (b) he could run for SD in his 3rd year if he desired.
All 3 were successfully elected to these posts. James unfortunately was in Canada for some timeUnverified or incomplete information following the AGM, and so Rowan, as new Studio Manager, was left as acting SD. Not a lot of note happened during this time in YSTV itself, it was just business as usual. Generally YSTV was doing well, having increased its membership considerably thanks to the efforts of the Gang of Four, and the recent YSTV Clean-Up which had made the place look better and brought the team together.
URY In Bars
The first problems came due to the debate over the playout of URY in campus bars. Whilst out of the country, James had been in contact with Tim Bateson and Matt Fullerton of URY (Matt was not an active member of YSTV at this point) about proposed plans for URY to be broadcast in campus bars using Rediffusion. James had responded on behalf of YSTV stating that it would be unfair for URY to be allowed to broadcast in campus bars, suggesting that it would cut off YSTV's main distribution medium.
Richard Ash sent an email to Rowan, Jen, Jonathan and Dave stating that James Flinders didn't seem to think the rest of you needed to see the attached email [the one sent by James to Matt and Tim] I think you do. He stated at this time that As yet I have not contacted James, partly because I would like the rest of you to have a chance to comment first, also because I would like us to do it face to face not in email.
Richard also sent a message to Matt and Tim pointing out that James doesn't seem to have consulted anyone else in YSTV, and asked that they wait until the issue had been taken to a station meeting and stating that he could not preempt that decision in either direction.
Richard's feeling was that a decision of this magnitude should not be taken by any single YSTV member (Station Director or not), and that giving a specific response without consulting a station meeting was wrong of James.
The general feeling expressed by those who Richard emailed was that URY in bars would have to be carefully negotiated, but was not necessarily a point-blank no. However the key issue with regards to this article was James acting on behalf of a supposedly democratic society without proper consultation. Few would doubt he had good intentions, but many were angered about his methods.
YSTV Corporate Style
James' next controversial move was to suggest the introduction of a 'YSTV Corporate Style'. He initially sent an email about this to some officers (the team leaders I thinkUnverified or incomplete information) saying:
Here's an e-mail explaining the new corporate style. What do you think. It would include two basic templates (one for officers, one for non-officers). Is it okay? I tried to make it funny. Not sure if it worked.
The email was widely regarded by those to whom it was sent as misguided and patronising. For example, it started by saying YSTV has a poor image amongst other societies and students - this was not regarded as a great way to inspire confidence and morale. The message continued:
In order to combat this, and to show these people what a fun & funky society we really are, I've decided to introduce a corporate e-mail style. From now on, use the style for all e-mails you send that are YSTV-related.
Apart from the suggestion that a 'corporate style' doesn't sit well with a 'fun and funky' image, many felt that telling the members to use a certain style was overly heavy handed, and not a good way to address the voluntary members of the society. Multiple references to YSTV's organisational structure as a hirearchy of command were seen as against the team ethos of the society, for example the email said that when addressing multiple officers, the sender should list them in order of seniority, with the most important person first. Further, the email gave instructions which were seen by some as patronising, verging on rude. Examples include:
- Explaining how to separate paragraphs with blank lines
- Stating there should NEVER be double line spaces
- Telling people how to write their signature: ...we want your title, not your life story...
- Explaining use of capitalisation
It is important to note here that most would agree that James' intention was indeed to improve YSTV's image, however (within the knowledge of this article's author) every person who read this message thought it at worst insulting and at best misguided. It seemed to many to be obviously misaligned with the casual and team-oriented style of YSTV organisation and management.
The Constitution
James responded to the criticism about his handling of the URY in bars issue with a people email, which explained:
Some people have made it clear that they do not think it was my place to make such a decision. I had checked in the constitution, which makes no reference whatsoever to how we should make decisions. Neither does our policy document or the YUSU constitution.
He argued that a decision needed to be made quickly and that it was his place to make it. Some agreed, some did not. However the use of the constitution to justify his actions was not perhaps the greatest move with regard to keeping other members and officers on side. At the time (as I suspect is the case through most of YSTV's history) the constitution was essentially there as a set of guidelines and some protection against negligence on the part of the officership. To use it as a weapon or as justification for one's actions was not a common action, and was seen by some as overly defensive. James clearly felt attacked, as is evidenced by the following paragraph:
When first in the job, I was asked if we wanted to keep our office in Vanbrugh. I didn't go through a station meeting. I asked senior officers what they thought, but took the decision myself - that we didn't need it. If other issues which are part of my remit come up, I will do the same. I have to do what's right for YSTV, which I have done and will always do. I haven't broken our policy, our constitution or YUSU's constitution. I haven't done anything wrong.
Once again, certain wording irritated some members (referring to a YSTV officership as a 'job'), while getting on the defensive (I haven't done anything wrong) simply brought the question of whether he had or had not acted wrongly to a new audience of people who were not previously aware of the issue but who read people emails.
Richard replied to this email and said he felt James was seeming seeming arrogant and control freakish, not to mention completely unrepntant[sic]. Rowan meanwhile contacted James, saying:
As your 'deputy' at YSTV, but far more importantly as your friend, I feel it's worth saying something to you about your email of this morning... I understand that you wanted to clarify and that you wanted to defend your position, but you came across to me as very defensive (almost aggressive-defensive) which seems odd considering no-one was really attacking you (to my knowledge at least), merely expressing concern at your actions... The more worrying bit of this paragraph was "On normal issues, it would be the station meeting that would make a decision. But this is not an everyday issue. A decision had to made." The fact is that this is a long term issue... As you yourself said, this is a matter affecting the whole society, so surely you would think it sensible to consult as many people in the society as possible?!
In responses to Rowan, James repeatedly stated that he saw his job first and foremost as upholding the constitution, and appeared to put this as almost a single priority, irrespective of other duties such as working with and speaking to other members. His perspective on the seriousness of certain issues was certainly out of line with Rowan's own; But if a decision needs to be taken, and the constitution says I have to take it, then I will. I'm the one who would go to prison if things go wrong. Rowan did not see how URY's audio being in campus bars would cause anyone to go to prison.
Leadership Style
James was clearly (and understandably) upset by some of the criticism which was coming at him at this point. He felt that his job was to do more than just send e-mails and chair meetings, however some other officers felt that essentially the Director job is indeed centred mainly around communication and people management rather than making the big decisions. This sentiment actually became a bit of a running joke in the coming years, with 2006/07 Station Director Matthew Tole being quoted as saying I have none of the power, but all of the responsbility.
It could perhaps be said that this is the crux of all the issues which led to the eventual removal of James as Station Director - disagreements over the leadership style within YSTV. This is a shame, and seems to be unique within YSTV's historyUnverified or incomplete information for such strong disagreements to have occurred.
Criticism of Richard Ash
As one of the more vocal critics of James' leadership, it is unsurprising that James fought back a bit at Richard. He felt that Richard had himself overstepped the mark in his dealings with URY over the audio in bars discussion. As with the criticism of James, it is all subjective and could be argued either way. However in this case, there was much less feeling in YSTV that Richard had done anything wrong. This may be to do with people's opinions about what Richard said, however it was probably further helped by the fact that Richard, unlike James, was prepared to apologise for potentially annoying people, and ensure that he worked with others to resolve the issue. He sent an email to people@ystv saying:
As I seem to have offended some people, in particular James Flinders, in what I've done with URY before becoming technical director, I just want to apologise if I seemed to have oversteped the mark. I only intended the verbal discussions I had to reflect my views as a member on the technical merits of the ideas, and not to be those of the society or even a reflection of the wider implications of the scheme. If they have been perceived as such, I'm sorry and as I am now an officer of the society will treat this sort of issue with much more caution, as I could be seen to represent a level of authority I do not have.
This may have been seen as over-the-top at other times in YSTV, however in the climate at that time, it was an effort to keep everyone happy, and seemed to help.
Constitutional Ammendment
Following James' comments about the constitution being unclear on the decision making process (and the disagreement by some with his interpretatation was that he should make major decisions), Richard proposed an ammendment to the constitution to clarify matters. His intention appeared to be simply to avoid problems in the future (my aim is to clarify the future not to try and rake over the past), however it may have been seen by James and others as a direct response to the arguments taking place at the time. This was proposed and passedUnverified or incomplete information, as most agreed some clarification was needed in the constitution on this matter.
Vote of No-Confidence
A vote of no-confidence in James as Station Director was mentioned first by James himself at a station meeting in week 6Unverified or incomplete information. At this point, the suggestion was not a serious one in most minds, however, as time went on and people became more upset with James' running of YSTV, the question of a vote became more and more serious.
By that meeting, some members (such as Ed Jellard) were talking about leaving the society to avoid the politics and fighting and/or because they didn't like the way the station was being run. The following day, James sent an email to the team leaders asking if he had their support. By his own figures, 7 out of 11 people said he had their full confidence, 2 people said that they'd prefer not to talk in an e-mail, 1 person said they were undecided and 1 officer didn't get the e-mail in time. However the definition of "full confidence" was debated, as Rowan, for one, had said that James had his support on a personal level, but that there were some issues with his leadership syle, and that he would always act in the best interests of YSTV. However, it is clear that there was not a resounding cry of no-confidence at this point.