Ructions: Difference between revisions

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 sorted out 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.