Student dissatisfaction with the results of the recent referendum has manifested itself in a new YouTube video that alleges that YUSU is corrupt.
The video includes other allegations that YUSU has no mandate and claims that the reform of colleges into College Student Associations will ‘delete’ college spirit and history.
This follows other recent criticisms from the student body about how democratically the campaign was run.
Posters were placed around campus that attacked YUSU, saying ‘the only campaigns the Union fights are election campaigns.’
This was followed by a letter published in York Vision which criticised YUSU for running the campaign “in a highly undemocratic way” and requested that future campaigns to ‘reconsider their approach’.
Kallum Taylor, YUSU President, responded by agreeing that there was an “embarrassing lack of a debate on the 5 issues which students could vote on in this term’s referenda.”
However, he added, “The YE5 campaign was strong, and I make no apologies for people maybe mistaking the YE5 campaign page for an Official YUSU general referendum page. The no campaigns which existed where a damp squib at best, and it was those which relied on apathy.”
The debate follows the announcement of the referendum results when it was revealed that only around 7.5% of the student population voted for the referendum, and that despite not reaching the 20% quorum required for constitutional changes to pass, the Democratic Reform would still be partly enacted.
Taylor explained at the time, “I’m happy to say that, despite not reaching the 20% turnout we needed to make the Democratic Reform motion completely pass – by allowing us to remove the text of the old system from our constitution – we CAN still introduce the MUCH NEEDED changes which students told us they wanted, pretty much most of last term, and informally.”
Leon Morris, the leader of the No campaign against removing the position of Campaigns Officer says, “This is another of a string of events concerning anonymous antagonism towards YUSU. There is a key message here – and that is one of openness and transparency. People are nervous to confront us. We must improve in this area. The democratic review may indeed aid this, but I find that the way in which it has been introduced to the rest of the student body is counter to our very goals in YUSU.”
Joshua Lee, one of the proposers of motions for the Ye5 campaign declined to give a response.
Kallum Taylor, responded to the video “As far as I’m aware the actions brought forward from the referenda are completely legit. We have dedicated staff to maintain compliance with all of the rules and regulations. We ran a great yes campaign for the 5 motions, the no campaigns were non-existent, and that definitely harmed the quality of the debate… All I can say now is that I’m excited about working on the decisions made for and voted by our membership. It’s about time YUSU got a kick up the backside, and these motions will give it just that.”
George Offer, YUSU Welfare Officer, added: “This video draws attention to a common complaint about this Referendum: that no-one took the opportunity, or £50 funding offered, to campaign against some of the motions. This is a shame, but we can’t force people to volunteer. It is certainly not undemocratic, but simply a sign of a lack of interest or motivation. This is a common criticism about the current system, which is why our new system focuses on providing students with a lot more information about an issue before consulting them on it.”
Ursula Wild, a third year English and Related Literature student, says, “I think it’s a good thing that this video has been made, because it shows that students are engaging more with what YUSU are doing and that’s an important part of any democracy.”
This story literally blew my mind
Vision isn’t exactly helping with the mounting ‘pressure’ on YUSU with several articles a day slamming the work that they do.
“College Spirit”? Bahahahaha.
@Louise
Oh, trust me its deserved.
If anything York’s “students'” union is getting off very, very lightly ATM.
Frankly, if York students knew a lot of what has gone on, is going on and what will go on, then the tumbrels would have rolled by long ago.
Really? Reporting on student dissatisfaction is slamming the work they do?
More importantly, do you think it’s the job of any media outlet to ‘help’ YUSU rather than hold them to account? Or provide a platform for debate between the students and their union?
It’s interesting to finally see a dialogue between the SU and their students, regardless of whether the headline is overly critical – the points raised within the article are interesting.
We’ve been working hard and we’ve fixed the installation problems. We’re still finding it a bit difficult to get some things done though. Click on More YUSU-OS to help us out.
A quote from your own news editor – Jo, respect your reporting, but that is a bit lazy…
YUSU are making it harder to for people to get involved and are shutting drawing up the bridge with the excuse that students are apathetic, which is unsurprising given that YUSU spends most of its time doing boring sh*t and stabbing each other in the back.
@Umm Leon is the news editor but he’s also directly related to the issues that are being raised in the article. As has been well publicised, no-one lead any other ‘No’ campaigns. If you would like to suggest someone for an alternate quote who is similarly qualified, please do let me know.
Another year, same old Vision.
Attacking YUSU for the sake of it without actually proposing what they’d change. Hopefully one day you’ll bite too hard on the hand that feeds,,,
Your disdain for students is precisely the reason why almost every student has nothing but disdain for YUSU.
‘the hand that feeds’ – YUSU are in this sense the steward of university money. The student press should be funded to the extent that YUSU’s members, the student body, wish it to be funded and to the extent that the press serves the community (people who benefit through direct involvement and through the accountability it engenders).
Vision and Nouse are editorially independent and therefore should be able to report (as that is all this piece does) as they please without fear of financial reproach.
Why do George Offer and Kallum keep answering any criticism of how these referendums were run by saying ‘the new system will solve all of these problems’. Answer the question and stop deflecting! You are supposed to be our democratic representatives so why is nobody forcing you to explain yourselves.
If the government tried to force through constitutional reform despite failing to achieve a real mandate, they would be lynched! Kallum cannot simply tear up the constitution because it stands in the way of what he wants to do.
If the constitution says he needs 20% of students to vote, it’s Kallum and his cronies job to get out on campus, in to people’s kitchens, stir up some debate and make people want to vote. He simply cannot bypass democracy because he has failed to galvanise the student body.
The constitution is there precisely to stop Kallum and co acting beyond their powers. We need to suspend any action on these farcical referendums and have an independent review of this whole thing, if not by the trustees then by a real outsider, York council or somebody.
Might it not be worth the likes of Kallum Taylor to think about why turnout was so low in their farcical referendum despite the extensive ‘YE5’ campaign? If they can see past their own egos they’ll find that the answer lies in the fact that YUSU consistently just pushes the agenda that they want and is most convenient for them without actually laying out why this is actually beneficial to students. The main reason for this of course is the fact that it isn’t particularly beneficial to students on the whole so this is quietly swept under the carpet as those within YUSU just plague campus with a barrage of posters to persuade students to vote how the union wants them to, with the recent referendum the latest example of this practice.
The fact of the matter is that with so few students bothering to vote the referendum quite clearly shouldn’t be passed rough, yet YUSU will naturally bend every rule in the book to get their way. The whole situation was epitomised really when YUSU officer Thomas Ron was ranting and raving in a lecture shout out about why we should vote yes, and, hilariously, the lecturer actually stepped in to stop him as he felt it was biased and unfair. Pretty much sums up the picture of YUSU in general.
(Shouldn’t the first “that” in the subhead in fact be “which”?)