14
edits
Ructions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Meeting amended
(Another save) |
(Meeting amended) |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
An EGM was called to discuss and take the vote of no-confidence on Thursday 10th June 2004 following transmission of [[YSTV Week]]. It took place in G/020 and was attended by virtually everyone who was involved in the station some form, as well as some others. | An EGM was called to discuss and take the vote of no-confidence on Thursday 10th June 2004 following transmission of [[YSTV Week]]. It took place in G/020 and was attended by virtually everyone who was involved in the station some form, as well as some others. | ||
An impartial chair was needed, and as such [[Chris Thornton]] was chosen as he would soon be leaving the society, and had been away from York and out of contact with the station on an industrial placement since January and so had no knowledge of the disputes at all. It was widely regarded that he did a good job, keeping things in order and keeping things moving whilst 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. However, overall, he was a wise choice of chair. | An impartial chair was needed, and as such [[Chris Thornton]] was chosen as he would soon be leaving the society, and had been away from York and out of contact with the station on an industrial placement since January and so had no knowledge of the disputes at all. It was widely regarded that he did a good job, keeping things in order and keeping things moving whilst 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. However, overall, he was a wise choice of chair. | ||
Without minutes of the meeting to publish it would be unfair to describe it in too much detail, however considering its subject matter the meeting was satisfactory if lengthy. Generally the discussion was formal, avoided personal insult, and provided a reasoned discussion on recent behaviour and James' actions since becoming Station Director. The discussion did get heated when reference was made to the legitimacy of some of the attendees. [[Jen Ayerst]] pointed out that two members (in fact housemates of James) had turned up to the meeting having not been seen around YSTV recently, and it was implied that they had turned up simply to help swing the vote his way, and that they had not seen his actions from a YSTV perspective. One of these people 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 | The vote was not unanimous, but there was a clear majority and the motion was passed. James stood down as Station Director, and [[Chris Thornton]] suggested that previous [[Station Director]] [[Dave Baker]] should stand in temporarily. Dave was also largely uninvolved in the debate partly because James was due to live with him the following academic year, so he was seen as a fair choice of interim leader. It was widely regarded that most attendees of the meeting behaved well, including those who did not agree with each other, and that all sides were well-argued. | ||
==The Aftermath== | ==The Aftermath== | ||