By Evey Hornbeck – January 13, 2012
This week we all voted on the student canteen. Many (well, some) attended the discussion on Tuesday (which we covered on Twitter). The elections committee went to work counting, and we all expected to hear sometime last night.
I was in the play, but when I got out I found out the results had been embargoed by the KSU chair, Dave Etherington. The elections committee were done counting, they knew the results (still do) but Etherington had heard an “informal” constitutional challenge about the feasibility of the collection of the fee. Apparently there is some concern that it is impossible to collect the fee this semester (didn’t the committee or the exec check that?)
A quick reminder: here is the question –
BIRT a $14 levy be collected from all full time students of the University of King’s College for the 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 academic years to be used to help fund the HMCS King’s Galley. BIFRT the King’s Students’ Union dissolve its $83 380.45 GIC to be used as start up funding for the HMCS King’s Galley.
(Emphasis mine)
Because the question says “a levy be collected” if it can’t be, the question would be out of order, constitutionally. So Etherington, as chair, will bring that to the council on Sunday. They had to vote to bring it to the union as a whole. Further questions: can the “Be it further resolved” section on dissolving the GIC go forward? This is important as our window to cash GIC Monday, as I’ve been told. Is this just a mistake that the union missed in their haste?
We’ll be liveblogging the discussion on Sunday at the KSU council meeting. Etherington suggested it will likely not be in camera (so in secret, where I, and other non-council members including the scribe, would be kicked out). But you never know. Let’s hope I’m not kicked out, and can bring you the story.
5 replies on “The Editor's blog returns: Referendum Challenges”
The information regarding the supposed “window” for the GIC is completely false and should have absolutely no bearing on any discussion as to whether this should go through.
Also I’m curious as to why this is being labelled an “embargo”, an embargo being the deliberate cessation of trade with a particular country or jurisdiction for political purposes.
Furthermore it’s not a verb.
*The Editor’s Blog. sorry for grammar trolling
“Embargo” was the term used by Gabe in my correspondence with him, as in “Results will be embargoed until Sunday on procedure.” It can indeed be a verb: “to impose an embargo on.”