Ructions

URGENT NOTE: There is some discussion on the discussion page as to whether the level of detail and use of quoted emails here is appropriate. My note below about impartiality remains, however it IS NOT my intention to be unduly harsh to James Flinders, nor to discredit him. Therefore perhaps there is too much info here, and a simpler version of events would be more appropriate. Please have your say on the discussion page.

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.

Background

Leading up to the YSTV committee elections in 2004 there were three 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 three 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. Generally YSTV was doing well, having increased its membership considerably thanks to the efforts of the Gang of Four and having made the place look better due to the recent YSTV Clean-Up, which has also brought people together.

Problems In YSTV

URY In Bars

The first problems came due to the debate over the playout of URY in campus bars, long an ambition of the radio station. Whilst out of the country, James had been in contact with Tim Bateson and Matt Fullerton of URY (who 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", not unreasonably suggesting that it would cut off YSTV's main distribution medium.

Richard Ash contacted a number of active members stating "James Flinders didn't seem to think the rest of you needed to see the attached email", forwarding on the previous correspondence. Richard also sent a message to URY pointing out that initial response had been without internal consultation, something that any major decision such as this would require. Whilst few would doubt James had good intentions, his methods were seen as somewhat undemocratic and not in the spirit a democratic society.

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.

James' Criticism of Others

As one of the more vocal critics of James' leadership, it is unsurprising that James fought back a bit at Richard Ash. 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 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. The long debate in the meeting over this may however have triggered some of the subsequent saga over meeting lengths.

Meeting Length

One suggestion James made was that meetings should be shorter. He suggested that some people had turned up to a meeting, been bored out of their skulls and have never done anything YSTV related again. Whether this was true or not, it was almost certainly a valid comment that station meetings were dragging on at the time. However, suggestions such as stand-up meetings or a rigid 30 minute time limit were rejected by many as too strong a reaction. At a time when people were keen to make sure that important things were discussed with the membership, and concerns had been raised that James was not doing so, it was likely seen by some that James was trying to cut down on this. With hindsight, this was probably not the case, and as in other situations, James' intention was probably perfectly valid and innocent. Once again though, it appeared to some that he was trying to get his own way rather than discussing things with the membership.

This email did raise a recurring YSTV discussion about what gets discussed at station meetings and who they're for. Comments were made that they are for the running of the society, and that people only interested in producing programmes are welcome to do that without attending the meetings. This is an on-going issue which clearly has no "right answer".

Personal Rumours

At one point, a highly personal rumour appeared about James. I have no idea where it came from, nor the fine details of the rumour itself. It is therefore in no way appropriate at all to discuss it here except to say that it happened, and James sent a people email attacking the unnamed person/people who started it. Some saw this as a bad move as it simply highlighted the existence of the rumour, but James was understandably and justifiably upset. It is a shame that the rumour was brought to the fore, as it seemed that few people actually knew about it.

Vote of No-Confidence

(Repeatedly referred to as a vote of confidence by James, presumably due to his politics background where this term is used. However in YSTV's constitution, and in the meeting where the vote was held, it was referred to as a vote of No Confidence - i.e. a 'for' vote was to remove James and an 'against' vote was for him to retain his position.)

First Mention

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.

Decision To Call A Vote

However in early June, the vote came. It was proposed by Ed Jellard, and seconded by Richard Ash. Ed volunteered to do this at least in part because he would not be in York the following year, and felt he could take the 'blame' without too much problem, and his absence would help the unease at YSTV to settle.

The decision had not come easily. From not long after the first suggestion, many had considered what would happen if a vote took place. 2 major issues presented themselves:

• Would the vote succeed?
• Who would take over as Station Director if the vote did succeed?

These questions in themselves posed a problem. They needed to be discussed before a vote could reasonably be called, yet discussing them without calling a vote was difficult. As a result, some members did discuss these questions in private. Calling a vote which would subsequently fail would be disastrous. It would split the station apart and undermine James, while leaving him attempting to control a divided society. This would be bad for all members, including but not limited to James. So finding out a consensus was important, yet asking people how they would vote was hard. Secondly, if James were to be removed from office, a replacement would have to be found. With the new academic year looming, we needed a strong leadership and a united society.

The obvious replacement was Rowan, as it was known that he had considered standing for Station Director in the first place. He was uneasy about this, both because he had his own reasons for not standing originally, and also because he did not want to be seen to be attempting to pull power from James. He had been involved with the criticism of James, and although perhaps not the most vocal, was certainly linked to it. He was asked by a number of people whether he would stand as SD if James were removed, and refused to commit, as he did not want to pour fuel on the fire. However, many assumed that he would fill the role if it became vacant, and as history proves, they were right.

Once those proposing the vote had satisfied themselves that it was the right thing to do, they submitted the request.

The Vote Itself

An EGM was called to discuss and take the vote of no-confidence on Thursday 10th June 2004. It took place in G020.

Chair

An impartial chair was needed, and most of the officers could in some way be deemed partial in this discussion. As such, Chris Thornton was chosen, as he would soon be leaving the society, and had been away from York on an industrial placement since January.

It was widely regarded that he did a good job, keeping things in order and keeping things moving, while ensuring everyone got their fair say. The only criticism which has been levelled at him was in regard to a discourse he gave at the end of the meeting regarding the state of YSTV. He expressed his justifiable disappointment at the state in which he had found YSTV on his return, however many felt that he implied we had all turned to in-fighting without proper justification. It was pointed out that had he seen YSTV earlier in the term, he would have seen a happy and united society working together on a variety of projects (including the much-hyped YSTV Clean-Up). However, overall, he was a wise choice of chair.

Behaviour In The Meeting

To discuss the meeting in too much depth would inevitably introduce both bias and the limitations of memory. (It was well over 3 years ago!) However generally the meeting went extremely well considering its subject matter. Generally the discussion was formal, avoided touching heavily on personal insult, and provided a reasoned discussion on James' recent behaviour and his suitability for the post of Station Director.

The discussion did get particularly heated and a touch personal when reference was made to the legitimacy of some of the attendees. While everyone had been checked against the membership list, JenUnverified or incomplete information pointed out that 2Unverified or incomplete information members had turned up to the meeting having not been seen around YSTV before. They were friends of James and it was suggested that they had turned up simply to help swing the vote his way, and that their opinions were not based on true fact of the matter as they had not seen James' actions from a YSTV perspective. For example one (who was a housemate of James) suggested that people did not realise the amount of effort that James put in to YSTV, and that he worked a lot at home on YSTV-related matters. The response to this was that James' effort was not in question, rather his leadership style and decisions.

The vote was of course anonymous, and was not unanimous. However there was a clear majority and the motion was passed. James stood down as Station Director, and Dave Baker stood in temporarily, as he was the previous SD. It was widely regarded that most attendees of the meeting behaved admirably, even those who did not agree with each other. Matthew David Platts and Rowan were seen shaking hands and agreeing that the discussion had been fair even though the pair had different opinions on the outcome.

The Aftermath

As previously mentioned, Dave took over as Station Director on a temporary basis, and kept the post over the summer holidays. On the first day of the following term, an election was held, with Rowan having been nominated. Who did the nomination?Unverified or incomplete information His election speech pointed out that there were reasons he hadn't stood in the first place, and that if he were to take on the post he would need the support of the officership. He aimed to ensure that YSTV pulled together as a team again, and was duly elected. He served as Station Director until the next AGM in 2005.

James left the society, and went on to become chair of Halifax College.