Ructions: Difference between revisions

95 bytes added ,  24 November 2007
m
no edit summary
(Few amendments)
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
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...
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...


Note: The initial text of this article was written by two active members of YSTV during this period, however the subject matter is highly charged. The article has been reviewed by as many as possible of the people who were members at the time, and every effort has been made to ensure that this article is a statement of facts and nothing more, however others who were there at the time are invited to correct or contradict where they feel appropriate. The intention is certainly not to discredit James Flinders or to criticise him as a person, merely to describe the events of the time as they affected YSTV, including some of the underlying problems.
Note: The initial text of this article was written by two active members of YSTV during this period, however the subject matter is highly charged.  Becuase of this we have waited until all the main players in this saga have left the University of York. The article has been reviewed by as many as possible of the people who were members at the time, and every effort has been made to ensure that this article is a statement of facts and nothing more, however others who were there at the time are invited to correct or contradict where they feel appropriate. The intention is certainly not to discredit or criticise anyone as a person, merely to describe the events of the time as they affected YSTV, including some of the underlying problems.


==Background==
==Background==
Line 16: Line 16:
James responded to the criticism about his handling of the URY in bars issue with another email to the "people" list, using the constitution to defend his actions.  It was his opinion that the document did not include any guidance as to how the society should make decisions, or forbid him from doing so alone should he see fit.  At the time (and probably the case through most of YSTV's history) the constitution existed as a set of guidelines and some protection against negligence on the part of the officership. To use it as a means-to-an-end or as justification for one's actions was not a common action, and the use of the constitution in this manner was not well received.  When this was brought up he mentioned an example of a decision he made to relinquish the shared office in Vanbrugh college, which he took after consulation with senior officers but made the eventual decision himself.  He said he saw decisions like this as part of his remit and that he would continue to make decisions like this in the society's interest.  This was seen as not only confrontational but unncessarily defensive given that such "disputes" in recent history of YSTV would normally be settled over a pint in Goodricke bar, not by using the constitution as a defence.   
James responded to the criticism about his handling of the URY in bars issue with another email to the "people" list, using the constitution to defend his actions.  It was his opinion that the document did not include any guidance as to how the society should make decisions, or forbid him from doing so alone should he see fit.  At the time (and probably the case through most of YSTV's history) the constitution existed as a set of guidelines and some protection against negligence on the part of the officership. To use it as a means-to-an-end or as justification for one's actions was not a common action, and the use of the constitution in this manner was not well received.  When this was brought up he mentioned an example of a decision he made to relinquish the shared office in Vanbrugh college, which he took after consulation with senior officers but made the eventual decision himself.  He said he saw decisions like this as part of his remit and that he would continue to make decisions like this in the society's interest.  This was seen as not only confrontational but unncessarily defensive given that such "disputes" in recent history of YSTV would normally be settled over a pint in Goodricke bar, not by using the constitution as a defence.   


It was at this point real concerns began to emerge about the choice the society had made for [[Station Director]], given that the issues highlighted were unlikely to go away.  [[Richard Ash]] and [[Rowan de Pomerai]] both voiced their concerns to James via email, with Rowan in particular concerned about how defensive he was becoming and the lack of consultation from him over major issues.  In response James repeatedly stated it was his job to uphold the constitution - something that had rarely troubled previous [[Station Directors]] who had been more concerned with making telly and attracting new members.  Richard subsequently proposed an ammendment to the constitution to clarify matters as a result of the earlier uncertainty over the [[Station Director]] role. His intention appeared to be simply to avoid problems in the future however it may have been seen as a direct response to the arguments taking place at the time. This was proposed and failed because of questions over the wording of the amendment. It was agreed to correct these and return to the matter as most agreed some clarification was needed in the constitution on this matter, but other events overtook it, and the matter never needed to be re-visited.  
It was at this point real concerns began to emerge about the choice the society had made for [[Station Director]], given that the issues highlighted were unlikely to go away.  [[Richard Ash]] and [[Rowan de Pomerai]] both voiced their concerns directly via email, with Rowan in particular concerned about how defensive he was becoming and the lack of consultation from him over major issues.  In response James repeatedly stated it was his job to uphold the constitution - something that had rarely troubled previous [[Station Directors]] who had been more concerned with making telly and attracting new members.  Richard subsequently proposed an ammendment to the constitution to clarify matters as a result of the earlier uncertainty over the [[Station Director]] role. His intention appeared to be simply to avoid problems in the future however it may have been seen as a direct response to the arguments taking place at the time. This was proposed and failed because of questions over the wording of the amendment. It was agreed to correct these and return to the matter as most agreed some clarification was needed in the constitution on this matter, but other events overtook it, and the matter never needed to be re-visited.  


===Leadership Style===
===Leadership Style===
14

edits