We would like to take this time to scrutinise this communique in depth. Please take the time to read this as we feel it is necessary to be informed and question the actions of any NSA representative as they are representing us as students.
After the link you will find the entirety of the analysis however first a note from us. Napieranon is here to question the NSA and the actions of those involved in the NSA. We feel this is necessary simply because our current student publication is not up to the task and has failed miserably to provide this function of accountability and transparency that journalism should.
We are not amazing writers, we do not claim to be, we are not journalists, we do not claim to be, we are here to voice concerns and listen to the student population. To this end if there is anything you feel other students would be interested then we can be contacted on napieranon@googlemail.com, @napieranon on Twitter and the facebook page for Napieranon.
Below is the email, our comments are in fuchsia.
In March 2009 you have elected me as your President to represent you to the University [just a note that this email was sent before the actual elections count for the new president for 2010/11 - by about 30 minutes]. I would like to use this opportunity to thank you and to tell you how privileged I feel to be able to serve you [Positive, friendly and nice to see. Not often do we Napier students get communication from the NSA so the very end of the term seems a good a time as any; right? Comments at the end please]. Some of you may be aware, however [There's always a BUT], that I did not have the easiest year [For what reason? What was hard? The senate actually expecting some form of progress; A change in University terms that affected the Re-freshers events; Illness; Gaining University support for social space; Constitutional review. From what we see these are standard issues that could arise any year but honestly we actually don't know why this has not an easy year; Kasia has never informed us, the students]. Most recently I have been put ‘on trial’ in my absence [She was required to be there, her general attitude towards attendance of official NSA business and events is a part of the lack of confidence in her as a leader; more later] at an “Emergency Senate” initiated by Mr Nathan Sparling [and atleast 29 other representatives who would like to hold the NSA to account for their actions], where 26 people [actually, elected programme representatives] decided for the whole student population [That is their function and responsibility. Is it their fault that it was such a small number of the total number of representatives or the result of an administration that has caused many reps to lose faith in their ability to effect change?] that they do not have confidence in me [Interesting point: The vote of no confidence was passed by the vast majority of reps in attendance without hesitation. These are the few reps who actually attend regularly and have the dubious honour of having to work with this administration regularly. If they have no confidence then that is more telling than anything else we feel; what do you say?].
The meeting was notified to all students at 7 pm 11 March and took place at 5 pm 12 March [As provided for by the constitution], ultimately denying programme reps the opportunity to consult their cohorts [Interesting word to use as one definition is "a band of warriors": defensive much? Also, the programme reps are elected to represent their student colleagues and are trusted to make the best judgement on their behalf, this is not the first time there have been grumblings about the president and NSA so it is entirely possible they already consulted their "cohorts"]and denying me the opportunity to properly respond to the allegations [How? She was given notice. She had the motion from the 5th of March (a full 7 days before the meeting) and she has been defending her actions all year].
The meeting was notified to all students at 7 pm 11 March and took place at 5 pm 12 March [As provided for by the constitution], ultimately denying programme reps the opportunity to consult their cohorts [Interesting word to use as one definition is "a band of warriors": defensive much? Also, the programme reps are elected to represent their student colleagues and are trusted to make the best judgement on their behalf, this is not the first time there have been grumblings about the president and NSA so it is entirely possible they already consulted their "cohorts"]and denying me the opportunity to properly respond to the allegations [How? She was given notice. She had the motion from the 5th of March (a full 7 days before the meeting) and she has been defending her actions all year].
I personally believe that there should be better ways of dealing with problems as they arise [We agree and a good start would be to actively tell students what you are doing and why, then if there is a problem raised at senate or ANYWHERE else then respond in real time there and then, not a week or two later by email. In this day and age of real time communication 7 days is a very long time to go without communication], this is why I prepared a paper called “Creating an Environment of Support and Constructive Accountability” [We shall come to this later but interestingly a paper is not going to solve the problem without active leadership], which you can find attached and which I hope can be adopted as soon as possible. As a background to the paper I attach my response to Mr Sparling’s [and L. Cullen, B. Fox, C. Pilkington, L. Fraser, S. Moonie - on behalf of senate] allegations against me [and the NSA].
I would like to thank all the people who expressed their support throughout the year. Without you I wouldn’t remain as strong and positive and it would be much harder for me to achieve any of the big wins for students [Could we please have a clear and concise list of these wins? Kasia: Please leave these in the comments below], like the promise of a social space provision on Craiglockhart, Merchiston and Sighthill [Is this the only win? Also this appears to simply be: "We the University promise to allow space for the NSA"; where? When? What will be there?].
If you want to know more about the recent happenings please read on and see the attachments [Also look at Twitter and do a search for #journalgate and check out The Journal articles on NSA]. You can e- mail me on k.bylinska@napier.ac.uk with your support and comments [you can also email us on napieranon@googlemail.com, leave a message on Facebook page Napieranon or via Twitter @napieranon. We accept all forms of comment, criticism, praise, etc.].
If you’re a programme rep or other voting member then please attend all future meetings of Senate to ensure that there is a balanced representation of student views.
If you’re a programme rep or other voting member then please attend all future meetings of Senate to ensure that there is a balanced representation of student views.
[Yes please. Also it would be nice to have the NSA promoting programme rep work and supporting our reps a little more.]
Kasia [Napieranon]
EVENTS
12 February
On 12 February Mr Sparling declared himself a candidate for the NSA Presidential election and I declared that I would be standing for re-election as President. [No argument]
Election week was 8 – 12 March. [Not actually announced to students at that time. If the NSA knew already then perhaps more effort to promote this week from the 12th of February would have brought more voters.]
23 February
At the Student Senate held on 23 February 2010, Mr Sparling used Any Other Business (at the very end of the meeting) to call for an Emergency Senate to discuss a motion of No Confidence he wished to present against me. [Now we are still learning about senate and student government but senate is the place to raise concerns and this section of a senate meeting is for raising of issues to make the NSA and reps aware. This point was to notify NSA of the senate intent and since communication between reps is so difficult this was for information. The attempt to collect the required rep support (30 reps in favour of emergency senate) by email from Mr Sparling was quashed by a further email from NSA staff stating that reps should forward this email to NSA if received and not respond; this is clearly obstructing democracy] I had no prior notification that this was going to happen even though Mr Sparling is a member of my Student Executive Committee [Who as a result of various issues previously has had a difficult time working with the exec and due to the reaction to the rep email we are not surprised Mr Sparling felt the need to go direct to senate. This is not something to be hidden away.] and had many chances to speak to me about his concerns [Not just his].
24 February
The day after the Senate I emailed Mr Sparling asking for a copy of the motion of No Confidence he had prepared so I could respond to his concerns but he did not reply until 5 March giving his election campaigns (for NUS President and Napier Students’ Association President) as the reason for his delay [We do not know enough about this and our initial feeling is that Mr Sparling should have responded sooner. Nathan Sparling: Comments below please].
5 March
I finally received the motion from Mr Sparling on 5 March but no date for the Emergency Senate (where it would be discussed) because Mr Sparling still had not been able to get enough student representative signatures (30) [Due to staff obstruction and the difficulty of reps discussion at the best of times. Did you know that a rep does not have any way to find out who other reps are and cannot contact them directly unless at senate or they know them already. This whole system needs to be changed.] to agree that a meeting should take place as is allowed for in the Constitution.
Monday 8 – Friday 12 March Election Week
Mr Sparling withdrew from the Presidential election campaign [Citing corruption of election committee and an interest in speaking publicly on the issue] on the evening of Tuesday 9 March and stated that he was joining a ‘Re-Open Nominations’ [RON] campaign. A statement from someone within the RON team appeared on twitter around the same time which said:
“Vote RON for everything this week! Give your name to create an immediate vote of no confidence to prevent our current ‘leader’ Kasia from being re-elected”. [Not sure who tweeted this as it cannot be found while searching Twitter at this time and we do not remember seeing it. However it is not an accurate statement as voting RON would not create and immediate vote of no confidence but it would show that students are standing up to this. The Ron voting sat at 174 votes for President to some 400 and something to Kasia; after Nathan's votes were removed (102 of them)]
11 March
At 19:02 on 11 March an e-mail was sent to all students to say that an Emergency Senate would take place the following day at 4pm: giving students and reps just 21 hours notice. [Which is allowed, not ideal, but allowed. Also it is possible that some elements of the NSA wanted to get this over with so that the real work could continue; but that is merely conjecture.]
I wasn’t informed of the date and time of the meeting on 11 March though but received a notification at 10:54 am on the 12 March – giving me only 5 hours notice of the Emergency Senate. [Was this a failing of the NSA office to communicate to all parties? Was it Kasia not checking emails? What was the reason for this failed notification? Kasia: Comments below please.]
12 March
NSA took legal advice on whether the Emergency Senate was constitutional and legal. The advice received from the Solicitors was that it was not (see attached file) [We shall come to this but suffice to say it was only one side of the communication and some points raised by legal council were interesting points] mainly to do with the principles of natural justice.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act states:
“Everyone is entitled in full equity to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and responsibilities”. [Constitution states that the Executive is accountable to senate and she could have attended and given her side in person or atleast been there to ask for the vote to be postponed.]
The minutes of the Emergency Senate show that some of the people present were also concerned about the process.
“There was confusion over how and when the President was notified of this motion”. [because she was not there]
“Some Reps were concerned that they would not hear both sides of the story before voting” [because she was not there]
“A rep asked if it would be possible to defer this motion to another meeting of Senate” [technically yes though the general consensus was to get it over with; we understand. Who was there? Where are the minutes?]
“A Rep asked why this motion was being presented now and not before the elections as it detailed allegations which pre-dated the elections process?” [because the rep support was finally achieved through protesting and gathering a signed petition; the only way the motion could be raised due to the difficulties of gaining rep support and open communication]
“There was discussion surrounding the justification of a vote of no confidence as there were other options available” [True, it would be interesting to find out fully what has happened this year to actually lead to this point. There have been problems with the president since senate 1 but nothing official we understand.]
“Some Reps questioned why the motions of Censure were not brought at the time of the alleged Constitutional infringements and why the proposer’s name (Mr Sparling) was the only one included in the motion” [This should have been done and we are interested to know why it was not. As for Mr Sparling on the motion, he was the only one willing to place his name on there; the other parties were too concerned of the impact this would have on their future role as contributors to the NSA]
“It was stated that no other members of the Executive had formally raised concerns about meetings not taking place prior to this motion” [Why not? This is a valid concern we feel]
I received a message on facebook after the meeting (at 8:27) from an ordinary student who I had never spoken to before. He had taken the time to go to the meeting and he said:
“Hey there, I went to the Emergency meeting today at the NSA, and I’m really concerned about the way they’re dealing with this no-confidence issue [What are your concerns and how would you like to deal with the issue? Please comment below]. It’s almost like it’s bullying [Please clarify? As far as we can see it is listing the issues raised and trying to hold our elected representatives to account. As leader of the NSA there are certain responsibilities and expectations on Kasia which some students feel need to be addressed.]. They haven’t dismissed you, they failed on that vote [They being elected student representatives on behalf of students and "they" did pass with overwhelming support a vote of no confidence]. But what will you do now? Are you still standing for re-election, are you happy to still be our president? All you need to do is tell them you’re ready to talk [This is interesting and true. It would be nice to have a president that was willing to take criticism and deal with this rather than hide away and not face the music, hiding behind lawyers and emails. Leaders need to lead and especially by example. Is our current president a good example of leadership? Comments below please.]. You’ve got support so just talk”
I hope that the fact that I did not give up after all that has happened shows you that I really care about Edinburgh Napier students [If you really cared about ALL Napier students then you should address these issues head on and lead by example. Show us an example we, the Edinburgh Napier students, can be proud of]. As long as I will continue to receive your support I will not abandon you.
______________________________
Kasia Bylinska
NSA President
12 Merchiston Place
Edinburgh EH10 4NR
tel. 0131 229 8791
fax 0131 229 3462
______________________________
APENDIX 1 TO THE MOTION
Comments in red are Kasia Bylinska’s.
[Comments in fuchsia are Napieranon's]
[Comments in fuchsia are Napieranon's]
NAPIER STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
STUDENT SENATE
MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE AGAINST NSA PRESIDENT
Purpose
1. The purpose of this motion is for Student Senate to consider a Vote of No Confidence against NSA President. This motion has been outlined with a Purpose, the Motion Text and Recommendations for which Student Senate will have the opportunity to vote on which to carry out.
Motion Text
2. The President of NSA, has since they’re time in office, consistently breached the Constitution of the Association. This Motion notes which sections of the Constitution, we believe, in their time as President, has contravened, along with supporting evidence. I did not receive any supporting evidence to date, so I will therefore try to answer on the basis of what I was provided with.[The evidence is in the motion text; we believe]
3. The President of NSA contravened Part 2.4[A] – Remit of Student Senate.
a. The Student Senate cannot hold the NSA Executive Committee to account, as per their duties detailed in the constitution when the President fails to attend without apologies.
b. The Student Senate could not hold the NSA Executive Committee to account during Senate 3 on the 19th of January, when it discussed the Executive Report, which only detailed the actions of the President. As the President was not in attendance, there was not appropriate representation of the Executive Committee’s actions since the previous Student Senate, and is as such detrimental to the reputation of the other Executive Members
c. The Association President also failed to ask the rest of the Executive Members for their input in to the Executive Report.
I have missed 1 Senate only [2 actually. Since the emergency meeting is a meeting of senate.]. I was off sick on the date of the 3rd Senate and this absence was covered by a medical certificate by my GP. I sent my apologies to a member of staff. His statement is attached to this document. I have already explained the situation once at the 4th Senate (23rd February) and I am therefore very surprised to see the point being raised again. [As a result of this it would be worth while revising this process and adding a little redundancy so that if the member of staff is not there there is at least another path to senate ears]
Also attached is the attendance of Mr Sparling at various meetings since he became engaged with NSA in the academic year 08/09, which shows that he failed to attend 53% of the meetings he should have gone to and did not send his apologies to 70% of the meetings he failed to attend. This calculation is based on the evidence available on the 22/02/10. [This is pure deflection and serves no other purpose than to be childish. Also Nathan is not a paid sabbatical leader of the organisation; in fact he is a deputy officer of the business school which while important is not as demanding as President.
Also if we are looking at attendance then why not go the whole hog and publish EVERY senate, executive and committee member attendance at all meetings. Also as President it is Kasia's responsibility to promote the NSA and activities but what promotional activities have you seen recently? There is also a rumour that she slipped out of the Sports and Socs ball recently within 30 minutes; then again that is rumour.
The point made in this is not entirely about attendance but actually more transparency and accountability; The executive report was filled with events and actions that apparently only the President could report on but she was not in attendance and so this report was glossed over]
Also if we are looking at attendance then why not go the whole hog and publish EVERY senate, executive and committee member attendance at all meetings. Also as President it is Kasia's responsibility to promote the NSA and activities but what promotional activities have you seen recently? There is also a rumour that she slipped out of the Sports and Socs ball recently within 30 minutes; then again that is rumour.
The point made in this is not entirely about attendance but actually more transparency and accountability; The executive report was filled with events and actions that apparently only the President could report on but she was not in attendance and so this report was glossed over]
4. The President of NSA contravened Part 2.6[C] – The Meetings of the Executive Committee.
a. Under the Constitution of the Association, the Executive Committee must meet at least once per month. It falls under the remit of the President of the Association to call meetings of the Executive Committee.
b. The Executive Committee did not meet during the Calendar Month of December 2009.
c. The Executive Committee did not meet during the Calendar Month of January 2010.
d. As the chair of the Executive Committee, the President of the Association is in a clear breach of regulations by not holding Executive Committee meetings at least once per month.
I attach a full list of executive meetings with an explanation as to why some failed to be convened.
[We will get to this later but apparently the reasons for the missing meetings are mostly due to workloads and delays. Regardless the fact that some failed to be convened is still a breach of the rules set to ensure the executive continue to do the work they are elected to do]
[We will get to this later but apparently the reasons for the missing meetings are mostly due to workloads and delays. Regardless the fact that some failed to be convened is still a breach of the rules set to ensure the executive continue to do the work they are elected to do]
5. The President of NSA contravened Part 2.8 – Ad Hoc Working Groups
a. During First Senate, Programme Representative, now Member of the Executive Committee, Nathan Sparling asked that Senate be allowed to vote on the creation of an Ad Hoc Working Group to be set up to be given the task of writing a proposal, which would be submitted to next Senate, regarding the Constitutional Review. This would then ensure that there was student involvement at every stage, and that Senate was not happy with the Motion written by the University.
b. The President of the Association refused to allow a vote to take place regarding the creation of an Ad Hoc Working Group, citing it being un-constitutional.
c. This is a clear breach of the Constitution of the Association, and also misrepresentation of the Association to the Programme Representatives.
d. The President of the Association also does not have the right to veto any motion put forward at Senate. It is clear that that occurred in this case.
The proposer of this motion acted unconstitutionally. Under APPENDIX 7: NSA STANDING ORDERS point 5.2. one reads: “No binding policy decisions will normally be made without written proposals first having been circulated, prior to the meeting.” Creation of an ad hoc governance review working group is a binding policy decision. As a member of a governing body and a President I feel obliged to act as a guardian to the constitution.
[Honestly this is beyond us. However the wording clearly states "normally" which indicates there is possibility of abnormally. Also it reads like the request was to vote on the writing of a proposal for next senate which is prior notice required for a policy change. Are we reading this wrong? What exactly was the proposal for? Does anyone know what actually happened here? ]
[Honestly this is beyond us. However the wording clearly states "normally" which indicates there is possibility of abnormally. Also it reads like the request was to vote on the writing of a proposal for next senate which is prior notice required for a policy change. Are we reading this wrong? What exactly was the proposal for? Does anyone know what actually happened here? ]
The format of the governance review was approved unanimously first by the Executive Committee, including Mr Sparling, and then by the Senate (with only1 abstention).
[Where are the minutes from these meetings and the motions, proposals and other such material constitutionally required to be shared with students?]
[Where are the minutes from these meetings and the motions, proposals and other such material constitutionally required to be shared with students?]
6. The President of NSA contravened Appendix 1.3(a).12 – Description of the Representative Duties of the President, General Duties.
a. The President of the Association did not attend Third Senate on the 19th January, without apologies.
b. This shows a clear contravention of the Constitution, as it states “General Duties, including attendance at University and NSA committees (Senate...)”
c. Furthermore, as the President is ultimately accountable to Senate, after requesting a written apology for her absence on the 19th of January, this has yet to be received by any member of Student Senate.
d. The request was unanimously voted in favour by Student Senate, and failing to be properly held to account is yet another contravention of the Constitution of the Association.
As in point 1.It is concerning, however, that this issue is raised at the motion twice [Not quite. The point of attendance at this one meeting yes; but the reasons for complaint are separate.], given that Mr Sparling was a witness to my explanation at the Senate on the 23rd February [We believe the senate requested a written explanation not one in person. A small note perhaps but one that is key. Senate wished to be told of the reason for non-attendance before the next senate hence in writing. Surely this would be as simple as an email confirming a doctors note and that the staff member who received this note was also not there. Simple]. There were extensive contributions at the Senate by only a small group of reps about the issue of my absence [Some reps believe in representation and attendance?] but no vote took place [The vote was at the previous senate for a written apology], the minutes of the meeting are available as evidence [Where? Could we have these electronically please?].
7. The President of NSA contravened Appendix 6 [d].
a. The Constitution of the Association reads “It is incumbent on anybody hearing an allegation of misconduct to treat the subject fairly: to allow parties a proper opportunity to answer and be hears; to act reasonably; not to intimidate or harass the subject; and to consider her/his defence as objectively as possible.”
b. Whilst a complaint, submitted by the President of the Association against Nathan Sparling to the University, the President of the Association began investigatory proceedings regarding an internal complaint against Nathan Sparling.
c. Whilst having this conflict of interest, the President of the Association did not see any reason why they could not carry out or oversee the investigation in to the alleged complaint.
d. Not only does this contravene this section of the Constitution of the Association when it says “to treat the subject fairly” but it also contravenes “not to intimidate or harass the subject”. In having two complaints against him, it is evident he was being intimidated and harassed by the President of the Association.
e. Furthermore, the President of the Association has since been involved again with the internal complaint after receiving advice from the University to maintain a professional stance, and remove them self from the Investigation, appointing the Investigating Officer, selecting the Investigation Panel and agreeing on the Procedure in which the Investigation would take place. This shows an extreme conflict of interest, and breach of both the Associations Procedure and that of the Universities.
I regret to be unable to give you more insight into this situation but the persons involved have a right to confidentiality. I put special emphasis on ensuring that the process was fair and that I wasn’t part of it. The process used by NSA has been agreed with UNISON and ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) and is deemed as a transparent and robust process. This statement would be repeated in front of an employment tribunal by a senior officer from ACAS. [Due to this being part of formal University procedures relating to personal complaints there is little actual information available however if the University has advised the President to "maintain a professional stance" then there was something she must have done she was not supposed to do. Again this is deflection and hiding behind confidentiality; we do not care about the complaint only the repercussions of said complaint and actions taken to investigate complaint. Can we get any notes to that regard?]
8. The NSA President contravened Appendix 6[b].
a. The Constitution of the Association reads “it is not acceptable for elected officers or members to table disciplinary action against an elected student representative solely because of political or personal differences with her/him.”
b. The President of the Association submitted a complaint to the University against elected Student Officer, Nathan Sparling.
c. The University investigated and found no grounds against Nathan Sparling, and the complaint was dropped.
d. Since the complaint was dropped, the suspended internal complaint has restarted after advice from the President of the Association to the Investigating Officer.
e. It is clear that due to the complaint being dropped because there were no grounds for the complaint, and the re-start of an internal complaint, that there is some form of malice from the President of the Association against an elected student representative.
f. The University gave the President of the Association advice on how to run the investigation, which would have made it fair and impartial. This advice was not taken on board.
g. Since the President of the Association’s complaint to the University against Nathan Sparling, Nathan Sparling has found the working relationship with the President of the Association to be untenable, and can no longer support the work of the Executive Committee, as he is being excluded from many activities.
h. Nathan Sparling email NSA Staff regarding attendance to the Undergraduate Focus Group, as part of the Constitutional Review, the member of NSA Staff forwarded the email to the President of the Association, who did not reply, and still hasn’t replied.
This part of the motion breaches my confidentiality. Regardless of the fact that such a complaint ever existed and regardless of its status, the University’s policies are clear that everybody who feels dissatisfied in any way has a right to raise a complaint with the University. It goes on to say that individuals who did raise a complaint should not be victimised for doing so regardless of the outcome of the complaint. I attach an extract from the University Bullying and Harassment Policy to this respect. [True, harassment as a result of raising a complaint is not good in any form. The point we believe though is that the complaint was raised at University level - quashed - then raised again at NSA level - internally - which appears strange.]
Regarding the Focus Groups, Mr Sparling could take part just in one group: Undergraduate. There were 10 spaces in each group and 66 students declared themselves to be undergraduates, therefore the places were allocated randomly. I am sorry that Mr Sparling wasn’t one of them. I attach the excel spreadsheet to this respect. [So our constitution to maintain order over the NSA as a charitable and representative body is being reviewed by a tiny (10 undergraduates out of 13,107 undergraduates at Edinburgh Napier - Source) number of students? How exactly is the review being carried out? The Presidents blog (updated 3 times in 7 months) notes that the review is "...progressing well and ... still on time" (Kasia 24/01/10) however where is this timescale? What has been done? What stage are we at? How many focus groups are there?]
9. The above are clear and justified disciplinary offences as per Schedule 4(a) 3.1 – Disciplinary Offences
a. Schedule 4(a) 3.1(c) – Contravening the Association’s Constitution or Schedules.
b. Schedule 4(a) 3.1(d) – Behaving in a manner which has brought the Association into disrepute.
c. Schedule 4(a) 3.1(k) – Acting in contravention of any rules, codes of practice or specific guidelines properly established by the Association to regulate its affairs.
10. Senate has the right to discipline an elected officer for committing a disciplinary offence as per Appendix 1.2 - Specifications for and Duties of Full Time Trustees, Terms.
a. The Constitution of the Association reads under this section “Full time elected officers’ accountability is to the ordinary members of the Association, through the Executive Committee and ultimately through Senate.”
b. It goes on to say “Disciplinary action may be taken against full time elected officers under Appendix 5”
11. The description for a Vote of No Confidence is held in Appendix 6.4(c) of the Constitution of the Association.
a. This section reads “A Vote of No Confidence has the status of a first and final warning for gross misconduct [deliberate misrepresentation of the Association to the University (etc.)]. Votes of no confidence mean that the elected officers’ conduct or performance have been such that fellow members no longer have any confidence in her/his ability to continue to serve in that role; that the situation is such that her/his continued membership is untenable.” Any irrelevant information was omitted.
12. This motion should be supported because the President of the Association is clearly not competent enough to hold a position of such responsibility. Procedurally, the President of the Association is incompetent, having breached procedures as detailed above, not only of the Associations’ but of the Universities. The President of the Association has compromised internal and external disciplinary investigations twice, strongly misrepresenting the Association as incompetent to the University.
Recommendation
Student Senate has the two choices with this motion:
· To support a vote of no confidence against the President of the Association.
· To disregard the vote of no confidence.
Next Steps
Should Senate approve this motion of no confidence, the President of the Association will be given the opportunity to resign if present. Should they wish not to resign; a Vote of Dismissal will be held directly after the Vote of No Confidence is passed. If passed, a Vote of Dismissal would be final and the President of the Association would be dismissed from office and would no longer hold membership within the Association.
L. Cullen, B. Fox, C. Pilkington, L. Fraser, S. Moonie.
Programme Representatives, Student Senate.
N.Sparling
Depute Business School Representative, Executive Committee.
16/02/2010
The allegations raised above constitute severe misrepresentation. Mr Sparling disregarded any good practice regarding dispute resolution and regarding good governance as a governor and trustee of NSA.
[Please note this is not JUST Mr Sparling but on behalf of a number of senate members and while technically Mr Sparling is a governor and trustee of NSA; Kasia is the leader of the NSA, paid by the NSA, accountable to senate, and a governor and trustee of the NSA and therefore her duty of care to Napier students is far great than that of Mr Sparling. Perhaps the motion was extreme and there are many steps that could have been taken prior to the motion that for all we, Napier students, are aware could have been followed but are just not reported on.
At Napier we have become used to an ineffective, insignificant, and downright disappointing student association and we at Napieranon feel this has gone on too long. Napier students have your say, what do you think? Comments below]
[Please note this is not JUST Mr Sparling but on behalf of a number of senate members and while technically Mr Sparling is a governor and trustee of NSA; Kasia is the leader of the NSA, paid by the NSA, accountable to senate, and a governor and trustee of the NSA and therefore her duty of care to Napier students is far great than that of Mr Sparling. Perhaps the motion was extreme and there are many steps that could have been taken prior to the motion that for all we, Napier students, are aware could have been followed but are just not reported on.
At Napier we have become used to an ineffective, insignificant, and downright disappointing student association and we at Napieranon feel this has gone on too long. Napier students have your say, what do you think? Comments below]
Statement from Ian Stewart
I am the admin staff member who produces the Student Senate attendance register, based on the list of currently registered Programme Reps, NSA Executive Committee members, Sports Exec, Societies Exec, and Veritas Editor.
In the days leading up to a Senate meeting, I usually receive a number of apologies from people on the senate List, mostly by e-mail, but sometimes by phone call or in person at the office. I then keep a hand- written list of apologies, updating it as necessary until the afternoon of the Senate meeting, whereupon I produce a typed attendance register. At Senate attendees are then asked to sign the Register and it is subsequently possible to determine: who attended, who gave apologies for absence and who were absent without apologies being sent.
On Tuesday 19th January 2010, I was unforeseeably absent from work, so the attendance register for that particular Senate meeting was not produced and people were asked to sign their names on a piece of paper which was returned to me the following day, and I have retained.
I can confirm that I had received apologies for the Senate meeting on 19th January 2010, from Kasia Bylinska, NSA President (in addition to a number of other people who could not attend). She telephoned me on Monday 18th January to inform me that she would be absent from work for a week.
Ian Stewart
ISAS/Admin Support
15 March 2010
[Why was this not attained sooner and sent to student reps and requested?]
Nathan Sparling Committee Attendance 08/09 and 09/10
Senates 08/09 Senates missed: 4 out of 5, no apologies received
No 1- 11/11/08- did not attend (no apologies)
No 2- 9/12/08- did not attend (no apologies)
No 3- 10/2/09- did not attend (no apologies)
No 4- 10/3/09- NS attended as Programme Rep
No 5- 5/5/09- did not attend (no apologies)
Senates 09/10 Senate missed: 1 out of 4 (1 still to take place), apologies received
No 1- 27/10/09- NS attended as Programme Rep, then elected Depute NUBS Officer
No 2- 17/11/09- did not attend (sent apologies)
No 3- 19/1/10- NS attended
No 4- 23/2/10- NS attended
NSA Exec meetings 09/10While a member of Exec missed 3 out of 5, apologies received for 1
No 1- 1/9/09- not yet exec member
No 2- 5/11/09- NS attended
No 3- 26/11/09- did not attend (sent apologies)
No 4- 9/2/10- did not attend (no apologies)
No 5- 18/2/10- NS attended
No 6- 16/3/09- did not attend (no apologies)
Student Affairs Committee 09/10 1 meeting missed, apologies sent
No 1- 24/11/09- NS attended
No 2- 2/3/10- NS did not attend (apologies received)
NUBS Faculty Committee 09/10 NS to attend if NUBS Officer is unable to attend
No 1- 10/12/09- NS attended in NUBS Officer place
Quality Committee 09/10 NS to attend if NUBS Officer is unable to attend
No 1- 29/01/10- NS attended in NUBS Officer place
University LTA Committee 09/10 NS to attend if NUBS Officer is unable to attend
No 1- 27/1/10- NS agreed to attend in NUBS Officer place but did not do so and did not sent apologies
NSA Executive Meetings 09/10
No 1- 1/9/09- convened, Chair KB Present
Proposed meeting for 30th September 2009 postponed until 5th October due to KB/Admin misunderstanding. Exec notified by e-mail.
Proposed Exec meeting for 5th October 2009 postponed until future date due to KB requiring to take external advice re Exec issue. Exec notified by e-mail.
No 2- 5/11/09- convened, Chair KB Present
No 3- 26/11/09- convened, Chair KB Present
Due to part- time officers study workload during December and Christmas break starting on 19th December, KB decided to postpone the meeting until after exams.
Proposed Exec meeting for 25th January 2010 postponed pending Exec members updated availability for new trimester. Exec notified by e-mail.
No 4- 9/2/10- convened, Chair KB Present
No 5- 18/2/10- convened, Chair KB Present
No 6- 16/3/09- convened, Chair KB Present
[This is indeed poor attendance but how does it rank to other members? If you want to start analysing absence then let's look at everyone's records and compare notes. Also Nathan is studying a full time course in addition to representing students while Kasia is being paid to represent students as her full time position; attendance is a requirement of that position]
APPENDIX 7: NSA STANDING ORDERS
1. APPLICATION:
These standing orders shall apply to all meetings of the Association defined by the Constitution. Where there is an apparent conflict, the
particulars noted in the main body of the Constitution shall take precedence, followed by the particulars noted in the schedules, followed
by the particulars noted in the appendices (including Standing Orders).
2. AMENDMENTS:
Any proposal to amend standing orders shall be made through the process of constitutional revision that apply to appendices.
3. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS:
A proposal to suspend standing orders may be made if a voting member has the support of a minimum of a third of the voting members
present. S/he may then present her/his reasons for the proposed suspension, to which the Chair shall respond. The issue shall then go to
a show of hands vote, and be decided by a simple majority.
4. MEMBERSHIP/QUORUM:
.1 Membership and the quorum of meetings of shall be defined under this Constitution and in the Schedules. Unless otherwise stated, it
shall be 50% + 1 of the total current membership, rounded up.
.2 Any inquorate meeting shall not be deemed competent to enact business, it cannot take the minutes of the last meeting, nor matters
arising, and any decisions it makes shall have advisory status only.
5. AGENDA:
.1 Agendas and papers shall normally be posted to members so that they may receive them in advance of the meeting date.
.2 No binding policy decisions will normally be made without written proposals first having been circulated, prior to the meeting
[Does not say it cannot be done at all, just that it cannot be done without notice.]
[Does not say it cannot be done at all, just that it cannot be done without notice.]
.3 The agenda shall have the following format:
[a] attendance - voting members, non-voting members and apologies;
[b] the accuracy of the minutes of the last meeting as a record of proceedings;
[c] the matters arising from the last minutes;
[d] reports;
[e] formal itemised business and items for decision and discussion;
[f] any other business, which shall normally be restricted to one item per member;
[g] the date of the next meeting.
Except [1] no proposals involving the spending of monies in excess of £200 for capital purchases or new recurring costs shall be
considered under section 5 [e] (see above).
Except [2] all issues relating to staffing shall be subsumed under the title "staffing", with papers being circulated only within the Executive
Committee, or the appropriate sub-committee of the Executive Committee.
Except [3] general meetings shall consider items under [e] only.
6. THE CHAIR AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBERS:
.1 Although the Chair has overall responsibility for organising meetings according to established procedures and for ensuring good order
and proper debate, all members have a responsibility towards one another to uphold the principles of democratic debate:
[a] wherever possible, to have read all pre-circulated papers and minutes prior to the meeting;
[b] to speak through the chair and maintain silence and good order while other members are speaking;
[c] to use the right of free speech to make points that are relevant to the issue, and to try to make contributions to debate that are clear
and succinct;
[d] to respect the rights of others to be heard in the debate and not do anything to prevent members from making legitimate contributions
to debate;
[e] to refrain from any loud, aggressive, intimidatory or threatening behaviour towards other members.
.2 The Chair shall be defined under the main body of the Constitution and its schedules.
.3 The Chair shall call for papers for discussion to be sent to her/him in advance of the meeting.
.4 The Chair shall draw up an agenda of business, ensuring that all items are within the remit of her/his specific committee; and shall
ensure that the agenda and any other relevant papers are circulated to members timeously.
.5 The Chair shall call the meeting to order and move through the business in the order listed on the agenda, unless otherwise directed by
a simple majority of the members at the meeting; or there is a suspension of standing orders.
.6 It shall be the duty of the Chair to maintain order during debate; to ensure that remarks made are relevant to the issue being discussed;
to ensure that no personally defamatory remarks are made between members of the committee; to ensure that any policy decided is within
the remit of the committee and consistent with objectives of the organisation defined in the Constitution and the Strategic Plan and within
overall policy guidelines established by Senate.
.7 On issues where the Chair has a personal interest, or there is a possible conflict of interest, it will be customary to demit the chair to a
member who has no such interest.
.8 Committees are often serviced by a staff member. It will normally be the case that a dedicated staff member supports the work of the
NSA committees but, on occasion, it may be necessary for her/him to substitute another staff nominee in her/his absence.
EDINBURGH NAPIER UNIVERSITY
BULLYING AND HARASSMENT POLICY
1. POLICY STATEMENT
Edinburgh Napier University will promote an environment for individuals where dignity and respect are of paramount importance. The University has a statutory obligation to protect its staff and students from bullying and harassment.
The University operates on the basis of equal opportunities for all, and will not tolerate the harassment or bullying of any member of the University staff or student community by another, or the victimisation of anyone for reposting such behaviour. Anyone who suffers such treatment will have the support of the University management, the trade unions and the Edinburgh Napier Students’ Association in taking action to stop it.
Extract from Focus Groups Spreadsheet
What is your level of study? |
1. Research Postgraduate |
2. Undergraduate |
3. Undergraduate |
4. Undergraduate |
5. Undergraduate |
6. Undergraduate |
7. Undergraduate |
8. Undergraduate |
9. Undergraduate |
10. Undergraduate |
11. Undergraduate |
12. Undergraduate |
13. Undergraduate |
14. Undergraduate |
15. Undergraduate |
16. Undergraduate |
17. Undergraduate |
18. Undergraduate |
19. Undergraduate |
20. Undergraduate |
21. Undergraduate |
22. Undergraduate |
23. Undergraduate |
24. Undergraduate |
25. Undergraduate |
26. Taught Postgraduate |
27. Undergraduate |
28. Undergraduate |
29. Undergraduate |
30. Undergraduate |
31. Undergraduate |
32. Undergraduate |
33. Undergraduate |
34. Undergraduate |
35. Undergraduate |
36. Taught Postgraduate |
37. Undergraduate |
38. Taught Postgraduate |
39. Undergraduate |
40. Taught Postgraduate |
41. Undergraduate |
42. Research Postgraduate |
43. Taught Postgraduate |
44. Undergraduate |
45. Undergraduate |
46. Undergraduate |
47. Undergraduate |
48. Undergraduate |
49. Undergraduate |
50. Undergraduate |
51. Undergraduate |
52. Undergraduate |
53. Taught Postgraduate |
54. Undergraduate |
55. Undergraduate |
56. Undergraduate |
57. Undergraduate |
58. Taught Postgraduate |
59. Undergraduate |
60. Undergraduate |
61. Undergraduate |
62. Undergraduate |
63. Undergraduate |
64. Taught Postgraduate |
65. Undergraduate |
66. Undergraduate |
67. Undergraduate |
68. Undergraduate |
69. Undergraduate |
70. Undergraduate |
71. Undergraduate |
72. Undergraduate |
73. Undergraduate |
74. Undergraduate |
75. Undergraduate |
76. Undergraduate |
APPENDIX 2 TO THE MOTION
John Hodge (Balfour and Manson Solicitors) emailed NSA on 11th March 2010 and stated:
“I refer to your email and our subsequent telephone conversation. I would confirm that my advice to you is that if the Senate is acting in a quasi judicial manner and administering discipline it is essential that the general principles of natural justice and those principles contained in the appendix (appendix 6) to the constitution are adhered to. In particular, it is essential that any body hearing an allegation of misconduct treats the subject fairly, allows him or her an opportunity to answer properly and in his or her own way, and acts reasonably etc. For that reason, I think it is essential that proper notice is given of any such motion to the subject and that the subject has the opportunity of preparing a defence. I would have thought that a week is the minimum period.
I also think that in a situation like this that reasonable notice needs to be given to members of the Senate to ensure that there is a representative cross section at the meeting.
You asked whether or not the meeting had to be held within 48 hours. I noticed that in terms of the constitution “emergency meetings of the senate may be convened by the Chair within 48 hours”. This does not seem to be obligatory. In these circumstances, I feel confident that it is more important that fairness prevails. There may be occasions when it is appropriate to have an emergency meeting where there may be reasons for it. However, in this particular case, it seems more important that the subject be given an opportunity to prepare any defence and that all members of the Senate are given a reasonable opportunity to attend.
It is also my view that in the event of the meeting being summoned at short notice without allowing the subject proper opportunity for preparing any defence, it would be open to judicial review and the decision suspended.”
Regards John John M Hodge, Partner Balfour + Manson LLP, Commercial Team
[We feel that there are some points to take from this. First the point on notice for an appropriate defence. Kasia has the motion from the 5th of March and senate was 12th of March; that's 7 days.
Second, the constitution is not entirely clear on the point of 48 hours and as such it can be read to say that notice is to be called within 48 hours but the meeting can be later than this. We feel that it would have been beneficial to have held the meeting a week after the notice however part of the motion was requesting the ongoing elections be brought to an end - later thrown out by the excellent independent chair appointed for that one night only - and as such the meeting needed to be during the ongoing elections]
APPENDIX 3 TO THE MOTION
GOOD PRACTICE IN GOVERNANCE
Edinburgh Napier University Court Handbook:
“You have a responsibility to set an example by demonstrating the highest standards of behaviour. You should never publicly criticise the organisation or fellow Court members [say by sending an email to ALL students?]. You must not attempt to undermine the Court decisions or distance yourself from them outwith Court meetings.
“It is important that nothing you do or say, whether acting in your capacity as a Court member or in a business or private capacity, should in any way tarnish the reputation of the University or the Court [Recent articles regarding the handling of the journal censorship, the elections, the vote of no confidence and other allegations are harming our reputation to external interests daily].
“Being a Court member does impose certain restrictions on what you can say and to whom. It is good practice- indeed essential- to clear articles or speeches on any subject matter which is at all relevant to the Court or the University with the Chairman or Principal in advance. If you are approached by the media, it is good practice to leave such responses to the Chairman, Principal or other designated officer of the University [The press have been getting nothing but no comment pretty much throughout this entire event. In the absence of the president there was no one else apparently to speak on behalf of the NSA and clearance of speeches is one thing; talking to your supporters in public and dealing with issues as they arise is different].”
NSA Executive Committee is an equivalent of the Court within NSA.
National Council for Voluntary Organisations:
“Trustees act collectively to fulfill their duties. All trustees should be able to demonstrate they meet certain key qualities, including to: (...)
· Be constructive about other trustees’ opinions in discussion, and in response to staff members’ contributions at meetings [Where is the president's constructive response to this issue? All we see is defence, deflection and complaint.]
· Be able to act reasonably and responsibly when undertaking such duties and performing tasks
(...)
· Be able to make collective decisions and stand by them”
The Nolan Principles:
Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for awards or benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
[Like, say, a senate meeting to discuss various breaches of constitutional rules?]
[Like, say, a senate meeting to discuss various breaches of constitutional rules?]
Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
[This is why we feel that all minutes of all meetings and any ongoing projects being undertaken by the NSA in any capacity should be publicly available through the NSA website within a few days of their passing.]
[This is why we feel that all minutes of all meetings and any ongoing projects being undertaken by the NSA in any capacity should be publicly available through the NSA website within a few days of their passing.]
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
[Resolving conflict is vital to any leadership role and dealing with issues before they become public spectacle is very important.]
[Resolving conflict is vital to any leadership role and dealing with issues before they become public spectacle is very important.]
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
[We feel we have been let down by our leader who has not shown any example of leadership ability that we would wish to follow and promote as good leadership.]
[We feel we have been let down by our leader who has not shown any example of leadership ability that we would wish to follow and promote as good leadership.]
----------------------------------------------------------
That's all folks.
Thank you for reading all the way to here and hopefully this was interesting if not enlightening. If you have any comments then please leave those below or send them to napieranon@googlemail.com, Twitter @napieranon, Facebooke page Napieranon.
Napieranon
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to discuss the post but please keep it civil. We are not here to be nasty. This is all about being open with information and events NOT hiding from the ugly truth.
With that in mind; go ahead and post a comment.