1

UNNAPROVED MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS

at the

Sixth Meeting of the Council

Of the

Imperial College Union

In the 2003/2004 Session

The sixth meeting of Council was held in the Union Dining Hall at the South Kensington Campus at 18.30pm on Thursday 19th February 2004 when there were present: Chair: Sen Ganesh Members: Oliver Pell (Council Chair), Mustafa Arif (ICU President), Mike Moate (DP F&S), Richard Walker (DP C&S), Katherine McGinn (DP E&W), Shrenik Patel (President City & Guilds Union), Matthew Cauldwell (President ICSM SU), Yong Bin Xu (President Faculty of Physical Sciences SU), Alastair Smith (Arts & Entertainments Board Chair), Nicola Williams (Athletics Club Committee Chair), Timothy Harcourt (Media Group Chair), Olanrewaju Fatemilehin (Overseas Students Committee Chair), Philip Power (Recreational Clubs Committee Chair), Pranati Joshi (Social Clubs Committee Chair), Edward Piggott (Equal Opportunities Officer), Sara Lethby (Community Action Group Chair), Tom Tibbits (Welfare Campaigns Officer), Lucy Pickard (ICSM SU Welfare Officer), [Name Unknown] (Physical Sciences Welfare Rep) Diana Paredes Hephaestou (City & Guilds Union Education Rep), Danny Sharpe (ICSM SU Education Rep Y123), Richard Jackson (Faculty of Life Sciences SU Education Rep), Darran Specter (City & Guilds Union Research Rep), Chunxiu Yang (Faculty of Physical Sciences Education Rep), Zhao Ding (OM), Aaisha Latif (OM), Elizabeth Carter (OM), Christian Morganstern (OM), Sebastian Tallents (OM), Talal Jamil (OM), John Collins (OM), Timothy Li (OM), Sameena Misbahuddin (OM), Ahmad Moolla (OM), Sam Rorke (OM), Dominik Von Lavante (OM). Permanent Observers: Mandy Hurford (Union Manager), Dave Parry (Union Finance Manager), Elin Morgan (Union Clerk). Observers: Alex Coby (Felix Editor), Nia Stevens (Live! Editor), Ameet Bhakta, Geoff Lay, Darius Nikbin, Dave Edwards, Jihane Belkoura & Julie Morgan, (Election Candidates) Colin Smith (Proposer for Ashkan Salamat), Andrew Smith, Nichola Hawkins, Idris Harding, Lucy Abbott, Hamish Common (Past President), Neil Walker (Membership and Development Manager, ULU), Chris Piper (ULU President), other students in the concert hall. Those not present were:

2

Apologies: Stephen Young (President Life Sciences Faculty SU), Kevin Fox (Departmental Societies Committee Chair-proxied to Ianjit Bhatti), Benjamin Kotrc (Royal School of Mines Committee Chair), Leah Glass (RAG Chair), Charlotte Barker (Faculty of Life Sciences SU Welfare Officer-proxied to Richard Jackson), Waleed Sarwar (City & Guilds Union Welfare Officer-proxied to Shrenik Patel), Ashkan Salamat (OM--proxied to Tom Tibbits), Dale Raine (Faculty of Life Sciences SU Research Rep). Absent: Andrea Smith (Wye Union Society President), Hayley Kirsop (Acting ICSM SU Education Rep yr 456). The meeting commenced at 6.30pm with minutes taken by the Union Clerk. 1.Chair’s Business 1.1 Sen Ganesh explained that he had been asked to take the Chair for this meeting. He said

that he had given information and advice to the President on the current situation and said that if anyone felt this would prejudice his impartiality, he would step down. There were no objections to proceeding with Sen Ganesh as chair.

2. Minutes of the Last Meeting 2.1 Nicola Williams said that she had proxied her vote to Tim Harcourt and not Tim Aplin. 2.2 Nichola Hawkins pointed out that her name had been spelled incorrectly. She also pointed

out that it had been she and not Nicola Williams who had made the remark in point 5.3. 2.3 Nichola Hawkins pointed out that point 3.3 should read ‘year 2000’. 2.4 Tom Tibbits pointed out that in 12.6, ‘for’ should be replaced with the numeric ‘four’. 3. Matters Arising 3.1 With regard to the membership of Council, Mustafa announced that Ordinary Member

Lucy Abbott had automatically resigned from Council having been unable to attend two consecutive meetings. Lucy Abbott was in attendance and wished to be reinstated. Mustafa asked if Council was prepared to so this.

3.2 Tom Tibbits asked if Lucy had given apologies for absence. Lucy confirmed that she had given apologies and named a proxy.

3.3 There were no objections to Lucy Abbott being reinstated as a member of Council.

LUCY ABBOT REINSTATED AS AN ORDINARY MEMBER OF COUNCIL

3.4 Regarding points 7.24/7.24 Katherine McGinn said that she had spoken to Residences about the first year guarantee and although their plans seemed vague, it seemed feasible that it would continue.

3.5 Andrew Smith said that he had done a number of calculations himself and felt that if there was a high turnout of first years, he did not believe that the guarantee could be maintained. He expressed the view that residences should be pushed to demonstrate how they hoped to achieve it.

3.6 Katherine said that as far as she was aware, the first year guarantee for undergraduates would be maintained but would not cover postgraduate students as it does at present.

3

3.7 With regard to point 12.9, Tom Tibbits announced that he and Nichola had called off the wedding (!).

4. Returning Officer’s Report 4.1 In the absence of the Returning Officer, Alastair Smith spoke on behalf of the Elections

Committee and announced that the report was as tabled. He said that the committee wished to talk about its decision to re-run the election and explained the events on the night of the count that had led to that decision.

4.2 Sen Ganesh noted these remarks and reminded those present that this issue would be discussed later with regard to appeals that have been made against the decision to re-run.

4.3 Colin Smith asked for clarification of the 17.5% increase in turnout mentioned in the report and asked what this was an increase on. Alastair Smith explained that it was a percentage of the number of registered Union card holders who had voted.

4.4 Colin asked if this meant that the turnout as a percentage of the whole college was half of this figure, as only around half have Union cards.

4.5 Alastair said he though the number of students that had Union cards was around 5800. 4.6 The Union Clerk gave a point of information clarifying that 17.5% was the percentage of

those registered to vote (i.e. Union Card holders) who had voted and thus the figure was best compared to the last year in which Union cards were required to vote, when the turnout was 900, which was around 10%.

4.7 A student asked for some ‘raw numbers’ on the turnout figures. Colin Smith replied that 1033 students had voted this year, whereas 1394 students had voted last time.

4.8 The report was duly noted, as was the fact that there were two appeals outstanding and an investigation pending.

5.Investigation into Sabbatical Elections-Terms of Reference 5.1 Mustafa explained that he had received a complaint about the conduct of various Union

Officers in the handling of elections, specifically the ‘impounding’ of Felix on Friday 13th February and the way in which appeals were dealt with afterwards.

5.2 Following a discussion with the College’s Academic Registrar, it had been decided that this was not a complaint about elections, but about the Union not following its own procedures, which was therefore a complaint under the College’s complaints procedure for students.

5.3 Mustafa explained that under this procedure, he was required to investigate such complaints, but under the circumstances, he had considered it inappropriate for him to investigate this himself, as he was a candidate in the election. He explained that as the elections implicated so many Union Officers, he had decided to seek out side help and with the Academic Registrar, had settled upon Mike Johnson, Vice President of the University of London Union (ULU).

5.4 Mustafa explained that the terms of reference of this investigation were outlined in the paper. He said that he would answer factual questions on the terms of reference now but that any discussion should take place later in the meeting during the President’s Report after the various appeals had been dealt with.

5.5 Tom Tibbits asked about the timescale over which the investigation would take place and asked for an assurance that the investigation would be complete by Easter if practicable.

4

5.6 Mustafa said that Mike Johnson wanted to get the investigation done as soon as possible, although Mustafa was unable to guarantee a date as the investigation had not yet begun and it was difficult to see how long it might take.

5.7 John Collins asked what Council would be accepting in passing this paper. Mustafa replied that Council was merely being asked to note the terms of reference.

5.8 John Collins expressed the fact that he was unhappy with Mustafa’s choice of investigator, feeling that he may be too heavily involved with the voting system itself. Mustafa agreed to answer this question later.

5.9 There were no further questions and the terms of reference were noted. 6. Elections Committee Statement 6.1 The Chair stated that agenda items Five (Elections Committee Statement) and Seven

(Appeal Against the Decision to Set Aside the Elections Results) should be taken together. 6.2 Edward Piggott of the Elections Committee explained that the statement should be taken as

a point of information only and. The Chair explained that he was equating the statement with a ruling and hence it would be taken together with Item Seven but that Item Six (Appeal Against the Decision to re-run the Presidential Elections) would be considered first.

6.3 The Chair expressed urged those present to consider the sensitivity of the issues being discussed and allow others to speak without interruption. He urged those present to listen to what was being said and try to establish the facts. For the sake of time, he asked those present to try not to repeat earlier points.

6.4 The Chair asked if there were any other appeals aside from the two that had been tabled. There were none.

7. Appeal Against the Decision to re-run the Presidential Elections 7.1 The Chair asked the Elections Committee to give the history of the complaint, detailing the

original complaints that were made, what the Elections Committee had discussed, what it had ruled on and why. He also asked that someone from the Executive Committee explain what had happened when the appeal had come to them.

7.2 Edward Piggott, speaking on behalf of the Elections Committee explained that on Friday 13th February, the Elections Committee had received three formal complaints regarding the issue of Felix due to come out on that day, two of which were in writing and one of which had been presented verbally at a meeting of the committee. He explained that the complaints included allegations of collusion between current Union officers and elections candidates and other allegations of bias relating to that issue of Felix.

7.3 Edward explained that the Elections Committee had felt that in order not to prejudice the outcome of any decision that might be made, that the release of Felix should be temporarily delayed while the complaints were investigated.

7.4 At around 2.30pm, all issues of Felix were brought into the Union offices by the members of the Elections Committee who were present at the meeting that had taken place at 12.30pm that day when the complaints had been heard.

7.5 The Elections Committee then spent some time speaking to those who had been mentioned in the complaints and on the basis of this had decided that there was no evidence to support claims of collusion between either current or future officers of the Union. The committee also decided that while the contents of Felix were not compromising to the Election in

5

general, the presidential election had been tainted and the decision was therefore taken to re-run this election at a later date. This decision was then appealed to the Executive Committee.

7.6 Colin Smith asked what the extent of the investigation had been when the decision was taken that there had been no collusion. Edward explained that the committee had spoken with the Felix Editor, Dave Edwards and Mustafa Arif and did not find any evidence of collusion. He noted that the persons who had made this complaint had been unable to present any evidence to support their allegations and thus the elections Committee had come to the decision that there was no collusion in Felix.

7.7 Idris stated that there was no mention of collusion in the elections regulations and expressed the view that the question must be whether or not point 39 of the elections regulations, that student media should be “equally available to all candidates” had been violated.

7.8 John Collins of the Elections Committee said that the decision to ‘impound’ Felix had been made rashly and the Committee regretted any offence caused by it. He explained that it was a decision that was made on a temporary basis so that the facts of the complaints could be established. He stressed that not all members of the committee had been present when this had happened but that those who were had agreed unanimously on the decision.

7.9 John referred those present to point 40 of the elections regulations, which states that: “All media or newsletters reports or comments must mention the names of all candidates standing for a post within the body of the report, in the case of elections, or attempt to produce a balanced debate on both sides of the argument in the case of referenda. In any case reports and comments should be fair and accurate.”

7.10 Edward Piggott pointed out that allegations of collusion could be dealt with under the terms of agent’s actions, where others are acting on behalf of a candidate.

7.11 Alex Coby pointed out that parts of point 40 refer only to referenda. John Collins pointed out that it also says that ‘in any case reports and comments should be fair and accurate’.

7.12 In response to a question, the Elections Committee explained that the written complaints, which were received electronically, had been made by Daruis Nikbin and Ameet Bhakta and the verbal complaint had been made by Ashkan Salamat.

7.13 At the request of Tom Tibbits, the Chair read Daruis Nikbin’s complaint aloud. It was as follows:

Dear Committee, I would like to know exactly why it was Dave Edwards who wrote the front page news story whose publication could be seen to be beneficial for high-profile Presidential candidate Mustafa Arif. There is absolutely no reason why Alex Coby could not have written that article. They (Arif, Edwards, Coby) were all in the room at the same time - in fact Coby spent more time with Arif. After Hustings at Wye, Edwards and Arif had briefly sat down (about 1am in the morning) at the same computer to go over the details of the story - this had obviously been prearranged. Then later that morning Coby and Arif had a lengthy interview in Coby's office - during which the details for the front page article could have been obtained. But again it HAD to be Edwards' story. Having talked to Edwards he admits that they nearly withdrew the article from publication because of his own concerns. Again I reiterate the question: why did Dave Edwards write that article? In fact Dave Edwards has said that the blame should be put on Alex Coby for publishing the article. They both knew that it would be contentious - Edwards knew that the article could lead to trouble. Again if they knew this then why did Alex Coby not write the 150 words or so that that article constitutes?

6

I believe that Felix should be circulated, but I believe that David Edwards should be disqualified from the elections for consciously trying to obtain an unfair advantage through advancing a political news story. The Felix Editor has also shown a complete lack of common sense in this instance for allowing its publication. However, I think that Felix should be circulated - despite the Deputy Editor's conscious infringement of regulations on candidate equality and the rules against collaboration. As Science Editor my contributions to Felix have been completely apolitical. David Edwards' article is manifestly political - I cannot believe that none of them could see this. Best Regards, Darius Nikbin

7.14 The Chair read Ameet Bhakta’s complaint aloud. It was as follows:

hi there. wanted to make an offical complaint. i think it is extremely unfair that mustafa has been allowed to keep his state of the union in felix. it is a means of him advertising, and he has used it to promote his 24hr libraries, its a disgrace. secondly, a complaint about an article written by one candidate about another candidate. this is wholly unfair. if felix is released it will lead to an unfair advantage for mustafa. all ready many peoplpe have seen felix and it is out of order. Ameet

7.15 Colin Smith announced that he had been with Ashkan when he had made his verbal complaint and was able to summarise its contents. Colin disputed an earlier statement by the Elections Committee that the complaint had alleged that Felix had tried to “throw” the election. He stressed that the complaint had related to collusion between two candidates and that they had not wanted Felix to be impounded nor blame placed on the editorial body of the newspaper.

7.16 Daruis Nikbin stated that since making his complaint, he had spoken to Steven Newhouse who had explained that the case against Dave Edwards would not be pursued. Daruis said that he now fully accepted this, although he still felt that the independence of Felix had been compromised.

7.17 Sam Rorke asked for clarification of the meaning of point 40 of the regulations and asked if the requirement to mention the names of all candidates referred to all articles or only to articles concerning elections, stressing that if the latter was the case, was the front page news story considered an article concerning elections?

7.18 Alastair Smith, speaking for the Elections Committee stated that the issues discussed related to the campaign pledges of certain candidates. Edward Piggott added that point 40 also stated that ‘in any case reports should be fair and accurate’. He pointed out that having received complaints, the committee was forced to investigate.

7.19 Sebastian Tallents requested further clarification of this point and whether it referred only to reports specifically about elections or to reports tangentially related to them.

7.20 Edward Piggott stated that at the time, the committee had decided that any reports that had any tangential relevance to the election should at least be considered for their potential to cause problems. He stressed that 24-hour libraries and more bike racks had been a central manifesto pledge for one of the Presidential candidates.

7

7.21 The Union Clerk gave a point of information that as the person who had minuted the meeting where elections had discussed this matter, her recollection was that, the complaints had made reference to two separate parts of Felix, each of which were investigated for different reasons. The first of these was the allegation of collusion, which related to the front-page story, and the second related to the ‘State of the Union’ column printed inside the paper, of which the complaints had related to whether the incumbent had had unfair access to Felix as the incumbent president.

7.22 Tom Tibbits said he felt that the front page article of Felix had been inaccurate as it referred to the new bike racks which had been planned some years ago and this fact had been in the public domain since November.

7.23 Idris Harding expressed the view that in order to clarify what grounds the Elections Committee had made their decision on, Council would need to see the minutes of their meeting.

7.24 By way of clarification, Edward Piggott read aloud the opening paragraph of the ‘State of the Union’: “A bit of a short contribution this week as I have been heavily tied up with the ‘e word’ which I’m not allowed to mention”. Edward Piggott pointed out that Mustafa then went on to talk about twenty-four hour library opening. He then turned to the Elections Committee’s agreement with Alex Coby, which read “ obviously neither should use this as a campaigning opportunity, please let us know if you have any further concerns with content on this point”. He pointed out that Mustafa had been able to refer to the elections in his ‘State of the Union’ Column.

7.25 Nia Stevens questioned the meaning of the phrase ‘fair and accurate’ stating that her interpretation of this was that all reporting should conform to general journalistic standards to report fairly and accurately at all times and not just with regard to elections.

7.26 Sebastian Tallents asked for clarification as to whether the contentious part of the ‘State of the Union’ column was the first paragraph, which Edward Piggott had read aloud, the mention of twenty-four hour libraries, or the proximity of the two.

7.27 Edward replied that it was all of these things as in the agreement between the Elections Committee and Alex Coby before the start of elections, Alex Coby had asked if Mustafa could keep his ‘State of the Union’ column. The Committee had agreed to this on the condition that Mustafa did not mention the elections in it.

7.28 Alex Coby referred to Appendix One to his appeal, an email from Steven Newhouse that stated that Mustafa should not use the column “as a campaigning opportunity” rather than stating that he should not mention the elections.

7.29 Alastair Smith of the Elections Committee stated that as twenty-four hour library opening was a campaigning issue, the committee had felt that mentioning it in his column constituted campaigning.

7.30 Alex Coby stated that this was a different matter and that he simply wished to stress that not mentioning the elections had not been part of his agreement with the Elections Committee.

7.31 Sebastian Tallents repeated his question as to whether the problem had been with the first paragraph, the second, or both together.

7.32 Alastair Smith clarified that it was the fact that he had mentioned the ‘e word’ and then gone on to mention a campaign issue.

7.33 Philip Power asked that the decisions made by Elections Committee and the reasons for them be linked to the elections regulations.

7.34 Katherine McGinn raised a point about Alex’s email, stating that Alex had said in his email to Steve about Mustafa’s column that “he doesn’t talk about elections”. She went on

8

to point out that in the ‘State of the Union’ column, Mustafa did mention “the ‘e word’” making it obvious what he was referring to.

7.35 Ameet Bhakta clarified that he had not been complaining about factual news being reported on the front page, but the fact that one candidate had been reporting on another.

7.36 Nia Stevens said that the statement that she and a number of others had received over the weekend, point 40 of the elections regulations had been cited.

7.37 Alastair Smith clarified that the decision had been taken largely on the basis of the verbal complaint made by Ashkan Salamat and that it was the nature of verbal complaints that it was difficult to remember what the gist of it had been. Edward Piggott pointed out that there was an existing ruling from the Returning Officer.

The Chair adjourned the meeting for a five-minute recess during which notes taken by the Union Clerk during the meeting were to be fetched. 7.38 Alastair Smith said that the decision had been made in relation to the verbal complaint

made by Ashkan Salamat and Colin Smith. He said that the gist of the complaint was that during elections, everyone should have equal access to media regardless of their current status. He stated that this related directly to point 39 of the elections regulations and the decision had been made on the basis of this.

7.39 Alex Coby pointed out that the statement released by the Elections Committee on the weekend of the 14th/15th February cited that point 40 of the elections regulations had been breached and due to the breach of that regulation, the decision had been taken to re-run.

7.40 The meeting moved on to consider the appeal made against this decision to the Executive Committee. It was established that Ameet Bhakta had made the appeal.

7.41 Ameet stated that he had appealed because he felt that the decision to re-run the election was wrong.

7.42 Philip Power expressed concern that the case being presented by the Elections Committee this evening was not the same as that which was presented to the Executive on Friday 13th. He added that further to this, appendix one was not made available to the executive on Friday night. He requested that the Executive be given some time to consider this.

7.43 In response to a question from the Chair, Mike Moate confirmed that only one appeal had been made to the Executive on Friday night. Mike said that the Executive had seen a complaint from the Felix Editor, a complaint from Darius Nikbin a verbal report on Ashkan Salamat’s complaint and the appeal from Ameet Bhakta.

7.44 Katherine confirmed that the Executive had seen the two complaints Mike had identified from Alex Coby and Daruis Nikbin and heard a verbal report from the Returning Officer on how the Elections Committee had reached their decision. She stated that the Executive had not seen the appeal submitted to the Elections Committee by Ameet Bhakta requesting an appeal to the Executive against the decision of the Elections Committee, but were read the contents of it.

7.45 Alex Coby said that he wasn’t aware that he had complained to the Executive at that point and that he thought that the complaints that were read out were the original complaints from Ameet and Darius about the issue of Felix.

7.46 Tom Tibbits said that his recollection was that Darius’s complaint had been read out, Ameet had been present and had stated his complaint and a verbal report had been given on Ashkan’s complaint.

9

7.47 Mike Moate asked the meeting to be patient with the Executive as they had sat through numerous meetings on this subject and were a little confused.

7.48 John Collins of the Elections Committee, who was present at the meeting of Exec, stated that he had read two complaints, one of which was from Darius and the other from Ameet. He said that he remembered very clearly that these had been the complaints that the committee had responded to at two o’clock that afternoon as the case that Ameet had then put forward in his appeal was the opposite of what he had said in his original complaint.

7.49 The Union Clerk raised a point of information that according to her notes from the meeting of Elections Committee, point 39 related directly to the verbal complaint made by Ashkan Salamat. She quoted Ashkan from her notes, stating that he had said, “ Everyone must have equal access to everything”. She stated that point 39 was the regulation that the Elections Committee believed that Ashkan felt had been broken.

7.50 The Union Clerk stated that while she had not been at Friday’s meeting of the Executive and was not aware of what case had been put there, her notes also made mention of the rules relating to ‘agents actions’ mentioned earlier by Edward Piggott and as she had not yet had time to look comprehensively at them, may also contain reference to point 40 and that if it seemed that there were discrepancies, this may not be the case, just that a number of different regulations had been discussed and she had not yet had time to type up her notes.

7.51 Philip Power of the Executive Committee stated that having consulted their notes, the Executive considered the case put by the Elections Committee to have been built around point 40 of the regulations. In response to a question by the Chair Philip confirmed that this was in relation to the complaint made by Ameet.

7.52 Tom Tibbits of the Executive Committee expressed the view that his recollections had been that the Executive had been convened for the sole purpose of considering an appeal by Ameet Bhakta against a decision of the Elections Committee and did not offer and jurisdiction on any complaints.

7.53 Mike confirmed that the Executive had met in its capacity of the appeals body for complaints and had considered the sole issue of Ameet’s appeal. In the context of this appeal, the Executive had seen Darius and Ameet’s original complaints and had been made aware of Ashkan’s verbal complaint.

7.54 Edward Piggott said he wished to clarify that point 39 of the regulations related solely to the ‘impounding’. Only point 40 had been considered at the meeting of the Executive.

7.55 Katherine McGinn stated that she felt it was important for those present to be aware that the main concern of the Executive surrounded the ‘State of the Union’ column and not the front-page article.

There followed a five minute recess for the Executive to consult their notes on the meeting of Friday 13th. 7.56 The Chair clarified that the situation thus far was that Elections Committee had

received a number of complaints and had decided to pursue a course of action. The options open to the committee are stated in point 82 of the elections regulations. These were:

82. The returning officer (or the elections committee if there is one) shall be able to

1. ratify the election, 2. order the election to be re-run,

10

3. partially or totally withhold a candidate’s deposit (see section 80), 4. disqualify a candidate (subject to appeal as in sections 86-91 below), or 5. disregard all the papers in a ballot box, or submission of electronic votes from a

particular source (this decision is to be taken before the count commences).

7.57 The Elections Committee confirmed that they had decided to opt for option two and order the election to be re-run.

7.58 Upon being asked by the Chair, Ameet Bhakta confirmed that his appeal to the Executive was because he felt that the decision taken by the Elections Committee was rash and the wrong decision to take.

7.59 Idris Harding asked Ameet which of the remaining options open to the Elections Committee he would have been happy with, having expressed his unhappiness with their choice of option two.

7.60 Tom Tibbits raised a point of information that the appellant had no jurisdiction to decide which course of action they felt was appropriate.

7.61 Ameet Bhakta clarified that his original decision to complain was because he felt that the article in Felix was unfair, firstly with regard to the front page article, he felt it was unfair that one candidate should be writing a story about another. He added that this had also happened on Live! The second grounds for complaint were the ‘State of the Union’. Ameet stated that although Mustafa had spoken about the ‘e word’. He said that although Mustafa had then spoken about twenty-four hour libraries, he did not have a particular problem with this, as it was a factual piece of information. Ameet stressed that his particular problem with the column related to the last paragraph, which contained the phrases “Finally, having been in office for nearly half of the year” and “with the experience that I now have”. He pointed out that one of the arguments Mustafa had used in his campaign and manifesto was that he should be re-elected because of his experience. He stated that he felt that this paragraph was completely out of context with the rest of the column.

7.62 Ameet referred to the final line of his complaint “if Felix is released it will lead to an unfair advantage for Mustafa.” Saying that in answer to Idris’s question, what he had hoped for when making his complaint was that Felix would not be released. He did not know at this time that not releasing Felix was not allowed.

7.63 Ameet stated that having found out about the decision to re-run the whole election, he felt that this was disproportionate to the unfairness in the article and this was the grounds for his appeal to the Executive.

7.64 Tom Tibbits explained exactly what had happened at the meeting of the Executive on that evening. The meeting had commenced with Oliver Pell in the Chair but given that he was a candidate, and knew no more other than that this was a complaint related to the elections procedure, he felt unable to chair the meeting, as he is a candidate. For this reason, he had passed the chair to Barry Edmonstone who was last year’s Council Chair. Everyone in the meeting agreed that Barry Edmonstone would be an acceptable chair and had ratified this decision. Following this, members of Exec who were also candidates left the room.

7.65 The meeting commenced with a statement from the Returning Officer. Tom Tibbits read aloud from his notes on this statement: “At 10.00am on the walkway, a candidate confronted him and made a complaint about Felix. At 12.00pm that day there was an Elections Committee meeting where this was brought up and the Elections Committee felt that there was enough of a complaint to warrant further investigation. In this respect, Felix was then impounded to stop further problems and Alex Coby was informed.” Tom

11

explained that at this point his notes were less clear but continued to read, “various candidates were talked to and the decision was made to allow Felix to be released again. At this point a decision had also been made about what to do about the Presidential election but unfortunately, Mustafa Arif was not available, or not to be found. Elections Committee wanted to inform both candidates of their decision at the same time. Finally at 2.45pm, Ameet was first notified of the decision to suspend the Presidential Elections and then almost simultaneously afterwards, Mustafa was found in his office, having been AWOL and was informed. At this point Ameet made an appeal. The decision to re-run the election was come to by Elections Committee on the basis that no candidate was explicitly to blame, no direct action of candidates in the mind of Elections Committee”.

7.66 Tom explained that Ameet was then asked to clarify his position and had said that he felt that there was no unfair advantage. Tom stated that at this point, his notes became hazy. He added that the case that had been presented to the Executive that evening had been presented to them as a whole, that is, the Executive was told about all three complaints and were asked to consider the appeal on the basis of those three together. Tom stated that the Executive had then gone into closed session to make a decision.

7.67 Edward Piggott of the Elections Committee clarified their position regarding the Elections Regulations. He stated that when the complaint had been brought to the committee, the decision to ‘impound’ Felix was taken on the basis of point 39 of regulation 2. When the committee had had a chance to investigate, they had then made a ruling based on point 40 of regulation 2. The latter had been the case that had been presented to the Executive.

7.68 The Executive then summarised the grounds on which they had made their decision to uphold the decision of the Elections Committee. Tom Tibbits explained that the decision had been reached in closed session after two and a half hours of deliberation. He stressed that the Executive had made every effort to ensure that they were acting fairly.

7.69 Tom explained that the Executive came to a decision to uphold the decision of the Elections Committee to suspend the Presidential elections and subsequently re-run them. He stressed that this decision was made on the basis of point 40 of the regulations and that at no point were the Executive asked to consider the ‘impounding’ of Felix.

7.70 Mike Moate pointed out that during deliberations on this matter, references were made to a number of other points in regulation two and the Union Constitution although the final decision was based on point 40.

7.71 The Chair then opened the matter for discussion, stating that what Council now had to decide was whether or not the original complaint had been handled correctly and whether or not Council wished to uphold the original decision made by the Elections Committee. He stressed that as the appeal was made on the basis of point 40 of the regulations, this was the basis on which Council needed to make their decision.

7.72 Alex Coby asked those present to look at the appeal that he had brought against the decision of the Executive, which he stated had made his position clear. He then drew the attention of those present to the statement from the Elections Committee, which stated that their decision had been based around point 40. Alex asked Council to consider that during the past week, the Returning Officer and Elections Committee had made clear that they had no issue with any of the facts being presented, and thus he could not see how either the front page story of Felix or the ‘State of the Union’ column had anything to do with point 40.

7.73 Tom Tibbits stated that he had recalled that the original text of Alex’s complaint, as submitted to the Executive had contained and extra paragraph. Alex explained that there

12

had indeed been a third paragraph which had been removed as it related to the investigation currently being carried out by Mike Johnson and not to this complaint and had been removed so as to avoid confusing this issue.

7.74 Citing clause 91 of regulation 2, Idris Harding expressed the view that the Chair had misrepresented the decision that was before Council, which was not to decided whether or not to uphold the decision of the Elections Committee but whether it wished to exercise any of the powers of Elections Committee to review or amend any of their decisions, using any of the options in point 82.

7.75 The Chair concurred that this was correct and stated that the matter for Council was to consider the appeal and that the options open were the five options stated in point 82.

7.76 Colin Smith expressed the view that the important issue was not the ‘impounding’ of Felix or Alex’s editorship of that paper but the possibility of collusion. He expressed the view that this made the case for disqualification, which is one of the options given in point 82.

7.77 A discussion took place as to whether or not collusion had occurred in the case of the front-page story of Felix. Points made included the following:

• There was little other news in Felix that week-this was the most newsworthy story. • Candidates had reportedly been seen sitting round a computer writing this story. • Alex Coby had told the Elections Committee that Dave Edwards wrote a front-page

article for Felix every week. On this basis they had decided that there was no basis for collusion.

7.78 Mustafa stated that he had not been told of this part of the complaint when he was informed of the decision to re-run. He stated that as President, part of his job was to communicate information from College to students and it was not unusual for him to brief members of the Felix team in the furtherance of his duties.

7.79 Mustafa stated that on his return from the Wye Hustings, Dave Edwards had asked him to look at a draft of an article that he had written concerning bike racks and twenty four hour library opening. Mustafa stressed that Dave had already written the article and he had simply corrected some factual errors within the report.

7.80 Tom Tibbits stated that the Executive had discussed this matter and decided that if the story were factual, it ought to be on the front page. He noted that there had been some discussion as to the factuality of the article before finally deciding not to make a decision on this, but merely to say that if it was news, then it should be on the front page.

7.81 The Council continued to discuss the allegation of collusion:

• The evidence for this allegation was stated as having originated from Darius Nikbin’s original complaint, the text of which is reproduced above.

• Dave Edwards refuted the allegations of collusion stating that Mustafa had been the primary source for the news story, but Dave had himself written the piece, which was subsequently checked by Felix editor Alex Coby. Mustafa had been asked to check some factual points within the report. Dave Edwards then substantiated every point independently. Alex Coby then read the article and took the decision to publish it.

• Alex Coby confirmed that the facts within the story had been checked with the head of Library Services and with Estates.

13

• Mustafa said that his role in the report was clarifying some matters which he felt had been misrepresented in Dave Edwards draft of the report. He stressed that he did not re-word the article himself. He had also provided names and contacts for Dave to corroborate his story independently.

7.82 Tom Tibbits stated that the Executive had never been asked to consider the allegation of collusion. He stressed that while some discussion of the front page article had taken place, the decision of the Executive was based on the ‘State of the Union’ column, which the Executive had unanimously felt had amounted to electioneering.

7.83 Nichola Hawkins asked if any of the other candidates had attempted to contribute to Felix in a similar way and had been turned down. Ameet Bhakta stated that he would not have had the chance to write a ‘State of the Union’ to talk about twenty four hour library opening or the experience gained from a first year as President as the column belongs to the incumbent. No other candidates felt that they had been given unequal access to Felix.

7.84 Tom Tibbits pointed out that Julie Morgan had bought two advertisements in Felix and this had been discussed by the Exec, who had decided that as these had been paid for and were clearly labelled as advertisements, these did not amount to an unfair advantage.

7.85 The Chair moved the meeting to discuss new issues. Council moved on to discuss the matter of the ‘State of the Union’ column.

7.86 Mustafa Arif said that he had thought that Imperial College students were not stupid and would have realised already that he was running for a second term. He stated that he had not realised how much trouble his use of the phrase “the ‘e word’” would cause and that if he had, he would not have written it.

7.87 Mustafa pointed out that twenty-four hour library opening had been the major thing that he had done that week and therefore felt that it should be included in his column. He pointed out that his last report to Council had made clear that this achievement was imminent and that a meeting with the Rector was coming up. He expressed the view that it was not his fault that another candidate had subsequently turned it into a manifesto issue.

7.88 Mustafa expressed the view that complaints about the third paragraph of his column were bizarre as anyone reading it would already know that Mustafa had been in power for half a year. He said that up to the point of this meeting, he had no idea that anyone might consider the final paragraph of his report to be electioneering and that it was merely something he had been meaning to say for a while and only then had a chance to slot in.

7.89 Ameet Bhakta disputed this, as he felt that the paragraph in question was incongruous with the tone of the rest of the column. He pointed out similarities with the contents of this paragraph and Mustafa’s manifesto.

7.90 Mustafa said that he had mentioned experience in his manifesto in the context of pointing out that there was a steep learning curve to the job, adding that the contents of the final paragraph of his column were there because he was short of things to write about and had been meaning to say this for some time.

7.91 Further discussion took place on the matter of the ‘State of the Union’ column:

• Danny Sharpe expressed the view that while he did wish to suggest that the election had been engineered in any way, he felt that bad judgement had been exercised in the publishing of this article and felt that it could have had an impact on the fairness of the election.

• Mike Moate said that what the Executive had decided was that by mentioning the elections in the first paragraph, he had placed the issue of the elections in the

14

forefront of the reader’s mind and thus prejudiced the reading of the rest of the article.

• While the Executive had considered that this displayed poor judgement, they had felt that due to the pressure that the President had been under, it was not entirely his fault, which was why they had upheld the Election Committee’s decision to re-run.

• It was argued that the issue of unequal experience, if applied to writing for Felix could also be applied to Hustings, posters and campaigning in general.

• Mustafa explained that the final paragraph was intended as an apology for the shortness of his column and had been included to make it slightly longer.

• It was argued that if Mustafa had received a column under an editorial heading for free and another candidate paid £25 for an advert, access to the media was disparate.

• The view was expressed that point 40 dealt mainly with content rather than access and that this should be the focus of discussion.

• It was argued that while it may not have been appropriate for the article in question to mention all candidates, it might be the case that it should in fact not have been published at all as it was not possible for it to be fair.

• Alex Coby referred again to Appendix One and state that in conversations with Steven Newhouse before the election period had commenced, it had been agreed that Felix contributors who were also candidates should be allowed to continue to contribute to Felix in the normal way.

7.92 Andrew Smith expressed the view that although evidence had been shown that Mustafa had made a mistake, there had been no evidence that re-running the election would be fairer. In particular, it was pointed out that it was likely that fewer students would vote in a re-run.

7.93 Katherine McGinn argued that the issue was not whether or not whether a re-run election would be fairer but whether or not this election had been run fairly. She pointed out that the Union was duty bound under the Education Act to run fair elections and that if these elections had not been fair, the Union needed to take action and throw them out.

7.94 Andrew Smith argued that in fact what Council had a duty to deliver were the ‘most fair’ elections. He expressed the view that if Council felt the ‘most fair’ election would be a new election, they should do this. If not, the current results should be kept. He suggested that the meeting vote on the matter.

7.95 Further discussion of whether a new election would be fairer took place. Idris suggested that Council take an indicative vote as to whether or not the elections had been fair and proceed to decide on a course of action according to the result. There were some objections to this and Council continued to discuss the matter.

7.96 Ameet Bhakta stated that although he had made one of the original complaints, he did not consider a re-run of the Presidential election an appropriate solution to the articles on Felix and hence had made his appeal to the Executive. However, he pointed out that on Friday afternoon, people who were not members of the Elections Committee or the Executive were aware of the decision to re-run, which might have affected their decision to vote. He expressed the view that because of this, the election must now be re-run.

7.97 Edward Piggott pointed out that the Presidential Election had still received the most number of ballots. Ameet argued that this did not mean that there had not been voters who had been discouraged.

15

7.98 Katherine McGinn stated that the Executive had met in closed session and not disclosed it’s ruling, as it was aware of the potential for appeals to Council and did not want to discourage voters. The only person to whom they had disclosed their decision was the Returning Officer.

7.99 Ameet said although the Executive had not revealed their decision to others, and had only told him of their decision on Saturday afternoon, Ameet himself had told a number of people who had asked him, although he had stressed that the Executive was considering an appeal. He added that Mustafa had sent out an email on the following Monday complaining that he had heard members of the Executive discussing the matter ‘casually’ in the bar after the meeting.

7.100 Mike Moate stated that no member of the Executive had revealed their decision to Ameet Bhakta on Saturday afternoon. Ameet confirmed that it was in fact the Elections Committee who had emailed him.

At 8.45pm Talal Jamil arrived at the meeting

7.101 Mustafa stated that the ‘loose talk’ in the bar that he had complained about referred only to the fact that a decision had been made, and had not revealed what that decision had been. Mustafa confirmed that he too had found out about the decision via an email from the Returning Officer, which had stated that he should not tell anyone about the decision.

7.102 Christian Morgenstern of the Elections Committee stressed that both candidates had been advised to continue campaigning.

7.103 A student announced that they had indeed been discussing the re-run of the Presidential Election in the bar on Friday night and that they had found out about it by word of mouth.

7.104 Union Manager Mandy Hurford, who had been present at the meeting of the Executive stressed that all those at the meeting had been very aware of the need for their decision to be kept secret and steps had been taken to ensure that this had happened. She expressed the view that while it was inevitable that students would be discussing the problems with the election in the bar and the potential options open to the Executive, there was a difference between such rumours and hard evidence that this had actually affected voting. She also expressed the view that the fact that the Returning Officer had informed the candidates concerned seemed fair, particularly since they were also bound to keep this information confidential.

7.105 The students who had admitted hearing about the decision in the bar stated that he had relayed this information to other students, who had not voted as a result of hearing this. The student confirmed that he had not heard the information from anyone present at the meeting or the Elections Committee.

7.106 Philip Power stressed that not all members of the Executive had been aware of the decision, only those who had been present at the closed meeting.

7.107 Further discussion took place as to whether or not students had found out about the decision to re-run and whether or not these rumours were sufficient to have discouraged voters. The Chair suggested that there was anecdotal evidence that the information had got out and members would need to consider what impact this might have had.

7.108 Tom Tibbits stated that the Returning Officer had not informed the Executive that he had told the candidates of their decision.

16

7.109 Alex Coby raised a point of information that Nia Stevens and himself had been informed of the decision at the same time as the candidates but had decided to keep the information confidential as they had both been involved in the original complaint.

7.110 Nia confirmed this and stated that they had not initially been asked to keep this information confidential, although two hours later she had received an email requesting this.

7.111 Katherine McGinn drew attention to election regulation 76 point 2, which reads: “It is an unfair practise to

1. infringe the Union Constitution, regulations or elections policy, 2. disobey instructions of the returning officer or elections committee in carrying out 76.1”

Katherine then referred to Alex Coby’s email to Stephen Newhouse regarding Mustafa’s Column, in which he states “he doesn’t talk about elections”. Katherine expressed the view that Alex’s subsequent decision to print Mustafa’s column when he did talk about elections constituted a breach of a ruling of the Returning Officer.

7.112 Alex replied that this email referred to the previous week’s column. He stated that the interpretation that he had made was that Mustafa should not use the column as a campaigning opportunity. Mustafa stated that he had submitted his column to the Felix Editor as he did every week and it was up to the Editor to edit the column and remove things where appropriate.

7.113 Jude Baxter proposed a move to a vote on whether or not Mustafa’s column had rendered the election unfair. There were no objections. The Chair clarified that the Council was voting on whether the content of the State of the Union Column was unfair and had resulted in an unfair election.

7.114 Members who believe that the Election was unfair: 24

Members who believe that the Election was Fair: 5 Abstentions: 8

MOTION CARRIED: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RULED UNFAIR

Darran Specter left the meeting and proxied his vote to Timothy Li

7.115 Having ruled that the Elections were unfair, the Council then moved on to consider a course of action as outlined in point 82 of the regulations. This discussion included the following points:

• That disqualifying a candidate was also an option, rather than a re-run. • That Mustafa should not be disqualified, as it is the job of the Felix Editor to edit

contributions. • That the other contributions made to Felix by candidates were not in any way

related to elections (i.e. Darius Nikbin’s article on carrier pigeons). • That other candidates had been punished for lesser breaches of regulations (i.e.

fines for breaking poster rules). • That Mustafa does not write news for Felix, he writes a column and was not doing

anything out of the ordinary in the issue of Felix in question.

17

• While editorial control should have been exercised, if Mustafa wrote this column knowing that it broke election regulations, he should be disqualified.

• That while writing the column was unwise, he was under a lot of pressure and should not be disqualified.

• Mustafa should not be disqualified, as there is only one other candidate for President.

• The option to partially or totally withhold a candidate’s deposit should be considered, as it is a similar principle to putting up posters in the wrong places, which is punished in this way.

• A candidate should only be disqualified of there is genuine evidence of dishonesty. • It was confirmed that a count had not yet taken place in the Presidential Election. • Council was informed that point 5 was only relevant in the case of stuffed/rigged

ballot boxes and not irregularities with campaigning. • It was confirmed that Council could overturn the decision of the Returning Officer

and ratify the election.

7.116 Ameet Bhakta expressed the view that it would be wrong to disqualify Mustafa as the responsibility should lie with the Felix Editor so re-running would be the only fair option. He proposed that the meeting move to vote on re-running the election. There was an objection to this.

7.117 Tom Tibbits expressed the view that re-running would be wrong, as it would mean that no new candidates would be eligible. He proposed that the meeting consider either option 5, or disqualification so that nominations could be re-opened.

7.118 Colin Smith expressed the view that the options should be combined to allow the election to be re-run and nominations re-opened. It was explained that the constitution did not make provision for this to happen.

7.119 Tom Tibbits proposed a motion for Council to consider whether or not Mustafa Arif should be disqualified as a candidate in the Presidential election.

7.120 Mustafa expressed the view that although he had his own views on whether his column constituted an unfair advantage or not, even if it had, disqualification would be out of proportion.

7.121 Tom Tibbits spoke in favour of the motion, citing an article that had appeared in Felix several weeks ago, which quoted Mustafa as having said “defeat the hard left on campus”. He also disputed the factual accuracy of the article on the front page of Felix, stating that this information had been in the public domain for some time. He also stated his belief that Mustafa had intentionally used his ‘State of the Union’ column as an opportunity for electioneering.

7.122 Christian Morgenstern of the Elections Committee raised a point of information that the first article mentioned by Tom had appeared before nominations were opened, meaning that it should not be considered as part of this debate.

7.123 Colin Smith pointed out that in point 41, it states that no candidate’s campaign materials shall appear prior to the close of nominations.

7.124 Mustafa pointed out that these were new complaints that he had not been previously asked to defend himself against. With regard to the comment in question, he stated that the comment in question had been made as a joke on MSN Messenger at around 4.00am one morning in response to a question from the Felix Editor and was not aware that his

18

response was to be published. He stated that as soon as he saw it in print, he had sent a complaint to the Felix Editor, which was copied to the Returning Officer. He stressed that the Returning Officer had replied, saying that he did not consider it a breach, as nominations had not yet been opened. Mustafa stressed that at this point, he had not yet decided whether or not to stand.

7.125 There was a move to vote. There was an objection. Mustafa stated that in response to the second allegation made against him (the front page Felix story), he had not written the story and that one of the things he had discussed with Dave Edwards was that the bike racks were historical. He stressed that while he would not necessarily have wished to have it published in the way it was, it was something that he had discussed with the Rector.

7.126 There was a move to vote. There was an objection. There was a vote on whether to move to vote on the motion on the table.

Votes in Favour: Many Votes Against: Few

7.127 The Chair asked if anyone wanted Mustafa to leave the room. There were no objections to his remaining in the meeting and the meeting voted on the motion to disqualify Mustafa Arif from the election.

Votes in Favour: 3 Votes Against: Lots Abstentions: Some

MOTION NOT CARRIED

7.128 The Council then moved to consider a motion to re-run the election. There was a request for clarification of the meaning of a re-run. The constitution was consulted and it was explained that it would mean that the ballot would be re-run, there would be no new candidates and no new hustings or manifestos, although campaigning would be allowed.

7.129 The meeting moved to vote. There was an objection on the grounds that some members required a recess. The meeting moved to vote on whether to have a recess before voting.

Votes in Favour: 15 Votes Against: 13

There followed a recess of five minutes

7.130 There was an objection raised to moving to the vote on whether or not to hold a re-run, on the grounds that not all of the pertinent issues had been discussed.

7.131 Danny Sharpe expressed the view that re-running the election would not lead to democracy, as many who had voted would not vote again. He proposed that Council consider ratifying the results of the election.

7.132 Ameet Bhakta responded pointing out that there had already been students who had not voted on the grounds of what they had heard about the election being cancelled. He suggested that the turnout might be better in a re-run if a ballot box system was used.

7.133 Danny Sharpe agreed that ballot boxes would have been better but said he felt that the number of students not voting due to rumours had not been significant enough to affect the result.

7.134 Tom Tibbits expressed the view that if the election was simply re-run, it would not be fair and that nominations could not be reopened, both candidates should be disqualified in order that nominations could be reopened and a fair, paper based ballot held.

19

7.135 Mustafa argued that this would be unfair, as one candidate would be disproportionately punished for a breach, the other punished for nothing and then both would be tarnished when nominations were reopened.

7.136 Hamish Common raised a point of information that under the Education Act, if Council was not satisfied that the elections were run fairly, it was probably illegal to ratify the results, unless they had first reversed their decision that the election was unfair.

7.137 John Collins raised a point of information that the presidential election results had not yet been counted and therefore could not yet be ratified. Danny Sharpe challenged the veracity of this statement.

7.138 Christian Morgenstern stated that although the count for DP (F&S) had been carried out and the counts for DP (E&W) and DP (C&S) had been attempted, the count for President had not been carried out.

7.139 The Membership and Development Manager of ULU, Neil Walker, confirmed that it was true that neither the Returning Officer nor the Elections Committee had carried out a count. He stated, however, that part of the tests to discover what had gone wrong with the system was a trial calculation of the results, although nobody at ICU had been privy to those results.

7.140 Neil Walker stated that if appropriate, these results could be released, although the Returning Officer had requested that they be withheld at present.

7.141 John Collins raised a point of information that statements of intent had not been signed for the Presidential candidates, meaning that any count would be illegal.

7.142 It was confirmed that the earlier vote taken by Council confirmed that it believed the Elections to be unfair, and not just that the ‘State of the Union’ column constituted unfair practise.

At 9.45pm, Diana Paredes Hephaestou left the meeting. She proxied her vote to Sam Rorke. Talal Jamil also left the meeting

7.143 There was a move to vote on whether to re-run the election for President. There was an objection to this.

7.144 Katherine McGinn queried whether there was a timetable for the re-running of an election, pointing out it might be better if time could be allowed for things to die down before holding the re-ballot. Mustafa stated that his interpretation would be that under the constitution, the re-ballot would have to take place within ten college days of having been ordered.

7.145 Nichola Hawkins requested a clarification of the constitution in terms of the College Authorities duty to ensure a fair election. Sen Ganesh confirmed that College Council needed to satisfy themselves that the elections had been fairly run. He explained that the results were normally presented to College Council, which then ‘rubber stamped’ them. He confirmed that in terms of the Education Act, the College governing body needed to be satisfied that elections were ‘fairly and properly conducted’.

7.146 Richard Walker expressed concern about the legal responsibilities of Council and also its readiness to apportion blame, stating that he felt it was too much of a grey area to judge. He expressed the view that Council should not yet move to vote, as it had not yet considered all the options.

20

7.147 Further discussion took place as to how unfair the election had been and whether a single unfair practise should merit a re-run.

7.148 The meeting moved to vote on whether to vote on the motion to re-run the Presidential Election.

Votes in Favour: 27 Votes Against: 5 Abstentions: 2

7.149 There was a motion to hold a roll-call vote on the motion. The meeting moved to vote on this.

7.150 Danny Sharpe spoke in favour of the motion, saying that members should have the courage to stand by what they were voting for. Andrew Smith concurred, saying he had called for the vote because members should be held responsible for the outcome of their actions. John Collins spoke against the motion, demonstrating that it was already possible to see how people were voting when they raised their cards.

7.151 A one-third majority was required for the roll call vote to go ahead.

MOTION CARRIED: ROLL CALL VOTE TO BE HELD

7.152 Roll Call Vote-See Appendix

Votes in Favour: 17 Votes Against: 15 Abstentions: 6

MOTION CARRIED: TO RE-RUN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

7.153 Welfare Campaigns Officer Tom Tibbits resigned from Council with immediate effect, stating that voting to re-run the election without reopening the nominations would retain the unfairness that had tainted this election and he would not be party to it.

Yong Bin Xu left the meeting. He proxied his vote to Sebastian Tallents. Upon the departure of Tom Tibbits, Ashkan Salamat transferred his proxy to Colin Smith.

8. Elections Committee Statement and Appeal against the Decision to Set Aside the Elections Results.

8.1 The Chair outlined that the Elections Committee had taken a decision to set aside the elections results and this decision was being appealed by a number of people. He invited the appellants to put their case before Council.

8.2 Sameena Misbahuddin explained that the text of her appeal was in the papers for the meeting, which she asked people to read. She stated that she felt that the decision to re-run had been made in haste and was unjustified.

8.3 In response to a request from the floor, the Elections Committee was asked to summarise what had happened that had lead to the decision to re-run. Edward Piggott explained that on Tuesday 17th February, the committee had met to count the votes. They had started with the Deputy President (Education & Welfare). Statements of intent were signed and the count proceeded. The first round of re-distributions of votes had proceeded without problems. On attempting to re-distribute the second round of votes, there had been a server side error. The process was attempted twice more and the same error occurred. The hosting

21

company was contacted, who said that they could see no problems. The Returning Officer then attempted to contact technical staff at ULU.

8.4 It was felt that nothing more could be done to count this particular election at present and the committee moved on to count the votes for Deputy President (Finance & Services) as it was felt that the error might be contained to one position. The two candidates for this post signed statements of intent and the votes were calculated. There were no problems with this count and Sameena Misbahuddin was declared the winner by a margin of around 39 votes.

8.5 The committee then moved on to the count for the post of Deputy President (Clubs & Societies). Candidates signed their statements of intent. The first re-distribution of votes in this position proceeded without problems. However, when the second re-distribution took place, names of candidates from the election for Deputy President (Education & Welfare) appeared on screen along with those for the election being counted, as well as two options for Re-open Nominations (RON).

8.6 At this point, one of the observers of the count, who had also observed the count for Deputy President (Finance & Services) expressed the wish that the committee should not continue counting using the system and instead move on to count the votes by paper ballot, both for that election and for the election for Deputy President (Finance & Services), thereby questioning the result that had been announced.

8.7 The Elections Committee had then needed expert advice as to what action they could take under the constitution and hence had called upon Mustafa Arif, in his role as the interpreter of the constitution. The Deputy President (Education & Welfare) Katherine McGinn was also present to ensure impartiality, as Mustafa was also a candidate in the election.

8.8 Edward stated that during that time, the committee had been able to get in touch with the technical representative from ULU. The Committee continues to deliberate for over an hour and a half, fully mindful of the implication of their decision on the futures of a number of people.

8.9 The Elections Committee had eventually reached the decision that they could not trust the calculation procedure. There had also been earlier problems with data-entry into the system at ULU. They had decided that if they were unable to trust one part of the system, they could not trust any of the system and therefore could not expect the students to do so either. It was decided to discount this election and move to a paper ballot.

8.10 The Union Clerk, who had been present at the count, raised a point of information that the observer present at the count had not requested a paper ballot but that the papers from the system be printed and counted by hand.

8.11 Darius Nikbin asked what technical information had been sought before making the decision to re-run. Edward Piggott stated that the Returning Officer had been on the telephone for some time attempting to speak to the hosting company and also the technical representative at ULU. He also pointed out that Steven Newhouse is a lecturer in the Department of Computing and yet could not feel confidence in the system.

8.12 Idris Harding asked if anything had happened that called into doubt the veracity of the figures, or just the method of calculation. Edward Piggott stressed that it had been the view of the Elections Committee that if there was a non-reproducible problem with one part of the system, none of the system could be trusted.

8.13 Sebastian Tallents asked if it was possible that votes could switch between elections in the way that votes had.

8.14 Neil Walker of ULU spoke to give Council some technical information on the problems that had occurred. He explained that the count on Tuesday had been disrupted by a small error that had affected two of the counts. The manifestation of that problem on screen had

22

however indicated a much larger problem that actually existed. Neil explained that during the election count, the software had got confused and had displayed incorrect elements from different elections at the same time. He stated that this error had been caused by bypassing a section of the software called the ‘vote index page’ at a crucial stage.

8.15 Neil explained that the ‘vote index page’ contained code that re-set the variables and prepared the database for the next vote calculation. Missing that step meant that further down the line, the software was trying to find both candidates and votes that no longer existed as they had been eliminated and their votes redistributed. The system was searching for variables that it had just deleted.

8.16 Neil stated that the system relied on navigation tools within the software. These tools also activate the various scripts to manage the database and enable the counting part of the software to work. If the system tools are not used, the scripts are not executed and the database remains in a transitional state, which cannot then be accurately counted in all circumstances.

8.17 Neil said that the software designer had tested the software code and the contents of the database and from those tests and from the monitoring information, had established that at some point in the process, the wrong navigational tool had been used. Neil explained that this could be as simple as a browser back button having been used. As part of the assessment of the problem, the software designer ran the election from the data using the system and the approved method. He achieved a full set of results, first and every subsequent time, perhaps indicating operator error when the elections were calculated on Tuesday night.

8.18 This had been verified by ULU, who as Neil had mentioned previously, had a full set of results for the elections, which had been shared with the Returning Officer.

8.19 Neil pointed out that the Elections Committee and the Returning Officer had opted to set aside the elections results on the grounds of members perceptions of the voting process without using the option of the inbuilt backup system of printing the ballot papers of the votes cast on the system and counting them manually.

8.20 Neil Walker confirmed that Steven Newhouse had made contact with him on Tuesday evening, when a message was left at around 8.45pm. Neil had eventually spoken to Steven Newhouse at around 10.45pm.

8.21 Neil stated that while Steven Newhouse may indeed have spoken to the hosting company, who can deal with server problems, they would not have known anything about the software and cannot fix it.

8.22 When Neil did speak to Steven Newhouse at 10.45pm, Steven had wanted to limit the length of their conversation because the meeting with the elections committee had already commenced. The conversation had lasted around three minutes and Neil had felt that at this point, a decision had already been worked towards, if not already made.

8.23 Regarding issues with the data entry, Neil conceded that there are occasions on which data is entered incorrectly, often because of incorrect data on the form. He stressed that to avoid this situation, the forms request data in block capitals, although this is rarely provided. There are sometimes also keying errors that are not caught when the data is reviewed. He stated that the proportion of incorrect data in this election had been lower than normal.

8.24 Neil Walker said that he could state categorically that there had been no evidence of data corruption, error, tampering or attack in relation to this election.

8.25 Summing up, he said that the problems that had occurred had been identified by the software designer, the whole system had been thoroughly tested, including the use of a

23

diagnostic solution on the program code, the data had been backed up and the database checked for errors and corruption. Crucially, no error had been detected. In terms if the errors being ‘non reproducible’, Neil stated that he had been able to reproduce the errors in question on his computer at home that evening, evidence which lent itself to the findings of the software designer.

8.26 Christian Morgenstern of the Elections Committee raised a point of information that concerns related to data entry referred to the input of email addresses to which the passwords were sent and not to the votes themselves.

8.27 In response to a request for clarification, Neil Walker stated that there had been no technical problems, but what had happened was a matter of operator error.

8.28 Edward Piggott said that he wished to being to the attention of Council that at the meeting on Tuesday night, the elections committee had been told that at last year’s ULU elections, similar problems had occurred.

8.29 Neil Walker confirmed that there had been problems with the system before and ULU had experienced a number of problems last year but these had not been problems with the software per se. He confirmed that last year, the announcement of one of ULU’s election results had been delayed due to a counting error. He stressed that this had been due to a minor issue of resetting the database after the election had begun, which had been necessitated by a much earlier human error. He stated that on that occasion, the paper ballot printing option was used to provide a result.

8.30 Mike Moate asked if Neil Walker could confirm that the counting script, when it had malfunctioned, had not affected the underlying data from the ballots. Neil confirmed that he could, explaining that they were essentially two separate bits of information and while counting, the software set up a transitional table and applied the variables in there. What had happened was that the transitional table had not been closed and wiped.

8.31 Nichola Hawkins said that she believed that the issue of the integrity of the data needed to be further subdivided into what had happened to the votes after they were cast and whether they had been subsequently changed and what had happened in the process of trying to vote. Neil Walker stated that the votes had not been changed after they had been entered into the system. He said that while it was theoretically possible, if necessary to check a selection of students’ ballots against how they had voted, this was not a standard function of the software or something that he would normally recommend.

8.32 Katherine McGinn raised a point of information that in signing statements of intent, candidates had already agreed that the inputting of votes had been fair up to that point.

8.33 The Union Clerk raised a point of information giving some of the data that had been given to candidates before they had signed their statements of intent. She explained that when the original emails with passwords had been sent out, there had been a number of bounces, amounting to around 15%. She had been sent a list of the emails that had bounced and a team had been organised in the Union Office that had individually sent passwords to these students. There had only been a small number of these that they had been unable to trace. As a backup, the Elections Committee had also provided a helpline number and the Returning Officer had additionally issues passwords by email. Around 72 passwords were given out in this way over the elections period, around 42 of these by email and the remainder over the phone.

8.34 Oliver Pell raised a point of information that the statement of intent signed by the candidates had not stated that the election had been fair and constitutional, just that candidates had no recourse to complaint that the election had been unfair or unconstitutional. This had been changed at the request of a number of candidates.

24

8.35 Further discussion took place of the problems that had occurred with students receiving passwords. Shrenik Patel pointed out that he had not received a password by email and had had to call the helpline to obtain it. Sameena pointed out that the justification given to candidates were that the methods were there if students took the initiative to obtain passwords.

8.36 The Chair asked how many people had not received passwords. The Union Clerk said that she knew of two cases that the Union had been unable to resolve. The problem with the first individual had occurred because he was not on the database at ULU and there was no record of his Union Card application in the Union office either. The other individual had emailed the Returning Officer requesting a password but had not given their ULU card number. Steven Newhouse had emailed the student back requesting this information, but the student had not replied. The Union Clerk stressed that there may of course have been other individuals who had not contacted the Elections Committee to say they didn’t have passwords, but pointed out that the helpline number had been advertised on posters, in Felix and in an all-college email.

8.37 The Chair asked if those present who had Union Cards could indicate whether or not they had their received passwords in the initial emails. There were six or seven who had not.

8.38 Dave Edwards expressed the view that by moving to the count in the first place, and offering the candidates statements of intent, the Elections Committee had agreed that there was no recourse to complaint over the voting procedure to this point and therefore any subsequent concerns from the Elections Committee with regard to voter registration must be unfounded.

8.39 A student who had worked in data entry suggested that a margin of error of less than 20% was OK, but indicated that in future, it might be more advisable to use College’s database for online voting. Neil Walker indicated that ULU was already in discussions with ICU about a possible rollout of the process. He added that one of the reasons for the low margin of error was the work done by ICU after ULU had contacted them to say that there were around 120 people for whom they had no data at all. ICU had been able to provide ULU with data on those people.

8.40 Idris Harding said that an essential element in deciding whether or not these elections had been fair was to look at the turnout, which he pointed out was around 30% less than last year. Christian Morgenstern pointed out that last year, Union cards had not been required to be able to vote and thus the turnout was more helpfully compared with the last year in which they were required. This year’s turnout was up around 10% on that figure.

8.41 Having heard all of the technical information available, Council returned to the matter of considering Sameena’s complaint. Sameena stated that she was appealing against the decision to re-run the election because it was not sufficiently thought through and not justified. She said that a re-run would cause disruption to candidates and to voters.

8.42 Sameena said that a re-run would not be fair because the conditions under which the elections were held would be changed in two ways. Firstly, the method of voting would be changed and also the conditions under which campaigning could continue would be distorted by the fact that the results for the election for the Deputy President (Finance & Services) had already been announced. She stressed that the result had been declared and also publicised on Live!

8.43 Sameena expressed the view that saying that because errors had been found with one part of the system, the whole system was flawed was not a strong justification for a re-run.

25

She pointed out that Neil Walker had stated that there was nothing to suggest that the data submitted had been incorrect.

8.44 Sameena drew attention to her email to Steven Newhouse, pointing out that she had also had some issues with the data entry and emailing of passwords, but felt that her questions had been adequately answered by the Returning Officer, adding that she had asked further questions on this matter before signing her statement of intent. She therefore felt that this matter had been closed and should not be considered a reason for a re-run.

8.45 Sameena pointed out that even after two problems with the count for DP (E&W), the committee had felt sufficiently confident to continue to the count for DP (F&S). She added that no protests had been made during the count for DP (F&S) and the committee had been sufficiently happy with the result to announce it. Sameena pointed out that the complaints about the DP (F&S) result had been made after the announcement of the result.

8.46 Sameena stressed that the failure of the electronic counting did not mean that there had been a failure in the electronic recording of votes. She suggested that if there was a problem with counting which could not be resolved, the solution was to count the voted manually from the data stored in the system, as there was nothing to suggest that this data was incorrect.

8.47 The Chair asked if this was a fair reflection of the view of all the candidates. Darius Nikbin expressed the view that if the election results were to be abandoned and re-run, the elections would lose all credibility.

8.48 Dave Edwards re-iterated his point that most candidates, along with the Elections Committee had signed a statement saying that they were happy to proceed to the count. He stressed Neil Walker’s evidence that the problems had been caused by user error and could be resolved.

8.49 Geoff Lay said that he hoped the Elections Committee were able to set aside their pride and recognise that while their decision on Tuesday may have been right, in the light of the full investigation that had taken place, and reassurances that the data could be trusted, there was no reason not to go ahead with the count.

8.50 Richard Walker pointed out that the Council should try to run as fair an election as possible and expressed the view that to re-run the election would not be as fair as counting the existing votes and that if this were not to happen, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the elections that had taken place were not fair.

8.51 Julie Morgan concurred, saying that if the data from the elections could be counted, it should be.

8.52 Sam Rorke said he would like to echo the views of the other candidates who had spoken, stating that he trusted the data, but not the counting method used and therefore felt that there should be a manual count of the data.

8.53 Matthew Cauldwell asked the Elections Committee if in the case of a manual count, the votes for DP (F&S) would also be recounted.

8.54 John Collins of the Elections Committee stated that the Elections Committee had made their decision on the basis of the information available to them at the time of the count and had been aware that evidence might later emerge to demolish their arguments. He said that if Council wished to proceed with a paper count, someone should propose a motion to that effect. He added that as the other electronic counts had failed, he felt that the DP (F&S) election should also be recounted if this was what Council decided. John said that the Elections Committee would be happy to facilitate a paper count as soon as the Returning Officer returned from India.

26

8.55 Danny Sharpe proposed a motion that the votes cast in the electronic system be upheld and counted by means of a manual count.

8.56 Shrenik Patel spoke against the motion, saying that he had been an observer for the DP (C&S) election and had witnessed the appearance on screen of the candidates from the DP (E&W) election. He said that if the system had brought in two candidates from another election, it called into question the integrity of data for all the positions.

8.57 Neil Walker explained that this was not the case as the counting mechanism was pulling the data from a transitional table and not from the real votes table, so the record of votes would be unaffected by any errors in the script of the counting mechanism.

8.58 Matthew Cauldwell proposed a move to the vote. There was one objection. The meeting moved to vote on whether to vote on the motion on the table. There were many votes in favour of moving to the votes and the move to vote was carried.

8.59 The meeting then voted on whether to uphold the results and carry out a manual count.

Votes in Favour: 26 Votes Against: 3 Abstentions: 3

MOTION CARRIED: TO UPHOLD THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTIONS AND CARRY OUT A MANUAL COUNT

8.60 Andrew Smith requested a presidential interpretation of whether an Emergency General Meeting could be called to refer the decision of Council to re-run the Presidential election back to Council. The Chair called a two-minute recess to consult the constitution on this matter.

At 10.55, Pranati Joshi left the meeting. Sameena Misbahuddin left the meeting, proxying her vote to Jihane Belkoura. At 11.05pm Colin Smith left the meeting. Ashkan Salamat requested that his proxy be transferred to Ameet Bhakta.

8.61 The Chair reconvened the meeting explaining that the President needed more time to look at the constitution before making his interpretation.

8.62 Mike Moate proposed that the meeting be subject to an 11.20pm guillotine. This was agreed.

8.63 Jihane Belkoura proposed a motion that instead of waiting for the Returning Officer to return from his trip, Council appoint a neutral observer. Referring to point 60 of the elections regulations, the Chair stated that the Elections Committee could count the election without the Returning Officer being present.

8.64 Jihane Belkoura proposed that this count take place within five College days. 8.65 Danny Sharpe proposed that the weekend be used instead. After some discussions about

the availability of the Elections Committee, the committee suggested that they could do the count on Wednesday 25th February.

8.66 After further discussion, Council moved to vote on whether the count could take place on Wednesday. It was confirmed that candidates would be able to send observers to the count.

Votes in Favour: Lots Votes Against: Few Abstentions: 3

MOTION CARRIED: COUNT TO TAKE PLACE ON WEDNESDAY

27

8.67 In view of the constrictions of time, the Chair opted not to move to the next item on the agenda, which was a talk from ULU President Chris Piper and move to the next item of the agenda. Sen Ganesh then handed the Chair back to Oliver Pell.

9. Reports-President

9.1 As the President was still engaged in consulting the constitution, it was decided to skip this item on the agenda and move to the next report.

At 11.10pm, Ahmad Moolla left the meeting

10. Reports-DP (Finance & Services)

10.1Mike Moate said that his report was as tabled. 10.2 Sam Rorke pointed out that papers for this meeting had been received at around 16.19pm,

which did not give members sufficient time to read them. He regarded this as unreasonable.

10.3 The Chair said that while he agreed that this was unacceptable, he didn’t feel that anything could be done about it now. He pointed out that he had raised this matter before and suggested that the point be recorded in the minutes and hope that the situation improved. The Chair added that he believed that on this occasion, there had been a number of computer issues.

10.4 Sam Rorke pointed out that the Union had policy that papers should be available seven days in advance of the meeting. The Chair agreed that this was indeed an aspiration, albeit an unrealised one.

10.5 There was an objection to accepting the report. The meeting moved to vote.

Votes in Favour: 16 Votes Against: 7

REPORT RECEIVED

11. Reports-DP (Clubs & Societies)

11.1Richard Walker’s report was as tabled. 11.2 Shrenik Patel asked what ‘CASA’ was. Richard explained that it was the Clubs &

Societies Administrator. 11.3John Collins asked Richard how much he had bid in the ‘slave auction’ earlier that day.

Richard couldn’t remember. 11.4 Shrenik asked further questions about the new CASA. The Chair ruled not to accept his

questions due to the constraints of time and moved on with the meeting. Shrenik Patel objected to the ruling of the Chair. The meeting moved to vote.

Votes in favour of the objection: 5 Votes Against: Many

11.5There were three objections to receiving this report. The meeting moved to vote.

Votes in favour: 21 Votes against: 7

28

REPORT RECEIVED

12. Reports- DP (Education & Welfare)

12.1Katherine McGinn’s report was as tabled. 12.2 Christian Morgenstern raised a point of information with regard to paragraph three,

pointing out that this had been resolved. 12.3 It was pointed out that Katherine’s report had been available to read for a week. 12.4 There were no questions and no objections and the report was received. 12.5Ameet Bhakta proposed that an item of any other business by moved up the agenda and

considered now. There were no objections

REPORT RECEIVED

13. Any Other Business

13.1Ameet Bhakta proposed that the meeting consider the method of voting (electronic or ballot box) to be used in the re-run of the Presidential election. He proposed that the guillotine be extended by ten minutes to allow for this. Sam Rorke proposed an amendment that it be extended by twenty minutes. There were no objections to this.

13.2 As this was a matter related to elections, Oliver Pell handed the chair back to Sen Ganesh. 13.3 John Collins pointed out that the ULU elections might be running at the same time as the

re-run and asked for confirmation of whether or not the online system would be available. It was confirmed that the ULU elections would not be at the same time as the re-run.

13.4 Union Finance Manager Dave Parry pointed out that holding a ballot box election would be dependent on whether or not it was possible to obtain boxes in time.

13.5 Mustafa expressed the view that if the re-run were to be held by paper ballot, it would send out a negative signal about the other results obtained by e voting, that Council had voted to retain.

13.6 Danny Sharpe pointed out that as this was a re-run, visibility was essential as turnout was likely to be low and thus ballot boxes should be used as they are more visible.

13.7 In response to Mustafa’s point, Ameet Bhakta expressed the view that a mixed message had already been sent out, as only the Presidential election was being re-run and not the others. He also stated his belief that ballot boxes should be used as only half of students have Union cards and a ballot box system using swipe cards would increase participation.

13.8 Christian Morgenstern raised a point of information that whether Union cards or departmental lists were used had nothing to do with whether e voting or ballot boxes were used.

13.9 Sara Lethby pointed out that the reason why Union Cards had been chosen over departmental lists was because of the logistics in dealing with students such as medics, who move between campuses and cannot guarantee being at a certain campus on a certain day to cast their vote.

13.10 Ameet Bhakta argued that the uptake of Union Cards among medics had been appalling as they had been unable to obtain them.

13.11 Medic President Matthew Cauldwell raised a point of information that Medics had been able to obtain Union Cards by post, adding that this had been advertised since the beginning of January. Sessions where Medics could get them in person had also been run at Charing Cross and Hammersmith.

29

13.12 Ameet Bhakta argued that the days made available to get cards in person at Medic campuses were insufficient and that it was unrealistic to expect students to print a form out and send it in. He asked how many students had actually used the postal service to obtain Union Cards. There was nobody present who could answer that question.

13.13 Mustafa expressed the view that there was a need to look at the long-term trends, stressing that the average turnout since the switch from Union cards to swipe cards, results had been consistent. He pointed out that one year, turnouts had been high and the other low, with the lowest year when swipe cards were used being when there was an incumbent President standing for re-election. He said this year’s turnout was consistent with the average, with or without Union cards.

13.14 Mustafa further remarked that in the three years when swipe cards were used, there had always been complaints that had gone to Council about medics being unable to vote. Mustafa further remarked that all students had been given an opportunity to obtain a Union Card and that if they wanted to vote, they would have done so.

13.15 On the matter of visible elections, he agreed that this one had not been particularly visible but said that visibility could still be achieved in online elections with computers set up in departmental lobbies. He argued that a visible online election would achieve a bigger turnout than by ballot boxes.

13.16 Lucy Pickard expressed the view that a ballot box system would alienate medics. 13.17 In response to a question, Mustafa confirmed that he was referring to actual turnout and

not turnout as a percentage of Union Card holders. 13.18 Mike Moate pointed out that opting for a ballot box system would have financial

implications for which no money had been budgeted. 13.19 Ameet expressed the view that logistical problems could be resolved later. In response

to Mustafa’s point that all students had an opportunity to obtain cards, he expressed the view that many students had been unaware of this and that the advertising had been limited to Felix.

13.20 Ameet pointed out that there was poor take-up of Union Cards at Silwood and Wye and expressed the view that the only democratic option was a ballot box system. He expressed the view that an online system would be fine in the future, but only if swipe cards could be used.

13.21 The Union Clerk raised a point of information as to the ways in which the election had been advertised; stating that 100 posters had been printed advertising the fact that cards would be needed and these had been distributed to Silwood, South Kensington and Wye. The information had also been posted on the website, an advert taken out in Felix and an all-college email sent out. In terms of Medical Students, Matthew Cauldwell had been involved in advertising the postal system to them a month in advance of elections.

13.22 Matthew Cauldwell said that he had advertised the matter prominently in the medic’s weekly newsletter for the four weeks of January, with the PDF containing the form available.

13.23 Mustafa added that he had mentioned the need for Union cards in his email newsletter to all students in October and December. With regard to Silwood, Mustafa stated that Silwood students had applied for Union Cards through the postal system and more Union Cards had been issued to students there than last year. He stated that the number of votes cast at Silwood had always been less than five.

13.24 Regarding the Wye campus, Mustafa said that interest in ICU elections at Wye had always been low, with the exception of last year, when the Wye President had stood for

30

election. Mustafa stated categorically that he did not believe that the requirement of Union Cards had affected turnout.

13.25 A student asked if the issue of Union Cards would be re-opened if the election was re-run. It was not possible to answer the question at that time.

13.26 A student expressed the view that it would be unfair to move from a Union Card system to a departmental list system for the presidential re-run as it would have the effect of changing the electorate from the one that voted in elections for the other posts.

13.27 Danny Sharpe expressed the view that it was important to remember that this was a re-run and therefore would be prone to low turnout. He expressed the view that the only way to ensure a visible election was to have ballot boxes.

13.28 Philip Power expressed the view that the only way to find out whether voters preferred online or paper ballot was to run both at once, but as this was logistically impossible at present, the meeting should simply move to the vote on which method to use.

13.29 There was an objection to moving to the vote. Ameet Bhakta expressed the view that Council had an opportunity to vote for the most democratic system and should not allow pride or logistics to stop them making the right choice. He also moved that the vote be a roll-call vote.

13.30 The meeting moved to vote on whether to go to the vote:

Votes in Favour: Lots Votes Against: Few

13.31 The meeting then moved to consider the motion to hold a roll-call vote. 13.32 There was a move to extend the guillotine for five minutes to allow the vote to take

place. It was withdrawn and the guillotine remained at 11.40pm 13.33 The meeting moved to vote on whether to hold a roll-call vote.

Votes in Favour: Many Against: 3

MOTION CARRIED: ROLL CALL VOTE TO BE HELD

13.34 The meeting moved to vote on whether to hold the presidential re-run by ballot box. 13.35 There was a call to count quorum. The meeting was found to be inquorate and was

immediately closed.

Meeting closed at 11.34pm. See next page for Appendix.

31

Appendix: Roll Call Vote

Vote Position Name Proxy 1 Abstained Council Chair Oliver Pell

2 Against President Mustafa Arif 3 For Deputy President (F&S) Mike Moate 4 For Deputy President (E&W) Katherine McGinn 5 Against Deputy President (C&S) Richard Walker

6 Against President of the Faculty of Engineering SA Shrenik Patel 7 For President of the Faculty of Medicine SA Matthew Cauldwell 8 For President of the Faculty of Physical Sciences SA Yong Bin Xu 9 Not Present President of the Faculty of Life Sciences SA Stephen Young

10 For Arts and Entertainment Board Chair Alastair Smith 11 For Athletics Club Committee Chair Nicola Williams 12 Against (P) Departmental Societies Committee Chair Kevin Fox Ianjit Bhatti 13 Abstained Media Group Chair Timothy Harcourt 14 Against Overseas Students Committee Chair Olanrewaju Fatemilehin 15 Abstained Recreational Clubs Committee Chair Philip Power 16 Not Present Royal School of Mines Committee Chair Benjamin Kotrc 17 Not Present Silwood Park Chair 18 Against (P) Social Clubs Committee Chair Pranati Joshi Simon Matthews19 Not Present Wye Union Society President 20 For Equal Opportunities Officer Edward Piggott 21 For Community Action Group Chair Sara Lethby 22 Not Present Rag Chair 23 Against Welfare Campaigns Officer

24 Against (P) Faculty of Engineering SA Welfare Officer Waleed Sarwar Shrenik Patel 25 Against Faculty of Medicine SA Welfare Officer Lucy Pickard 26 For (P) Faculty of Life Sciences SA Welfare Officer Charlotte Barker Richard Jackson27 For (P) Faculty of Physical Sciences SA Welfare Officer Suma Battacharya Proxy held

28 For Faculty of Engineering SA Education Rep Diana Paredes Hephaestou 29 Against Faculty of Medicine SA Education Rep Y123 Danny Sharpe 30 Not Present Faculty of Medicine SA Education Rep Y456 31 For Faculty of Life Sciences Education Rep Richard Jackson 32 Against Faculty of Physical Sciences Education Rep Chunxiu Yang

33 Against (P) Faculty of Engineering SA Research Rep. Darran Specter Timothy Li 34 Not Present Faculty of Medicine SA Research Rep. Never Elected 35 Not Present Faculty of Life Sciences SA Research Rep. Dale Raine 36 Not Present Faculty of Physical Sciences SA Research Rep.

37 Abstained Ordinary Member Zhao Ding

32

38 For Ordinary Member Aaisha Latif 39 Not Present Ordinary Member Elizabeth Carter 40 Not Present Ordinary Member Sara Khan 41 For Ordinary Member Christian Morgenstern 42 Against Ordinary Member Sebastian Tallents 43 Not Present Ordinary Member Talal Jamil

44 Against (P) Ordinary Member Ashkan Salamat Tom Tibbits 45 For Ordinary Member John Collins

46 Against Ordinary Member 47 Abstained Ordinary Member Sameena Misbahuddin 48 For Ordinary Member Ahmad Moolla 49 Abstained Ordinary Member Sam Rorke 50 For Ordinary Member Dominik van Lavante