Don’t listen to scaremongers- the Union needs a President.

Most of the criticisms against the idea of a President involve hypothetical scenarios and speculation. The YesNo campaign on Monday denied scaremongering, however then proceeded to speculate that a President might replace the position of Chair of Union Council therefore threatening the independence of Council. This of course would not happen.

Law Society Vice President Ross is voting Yes Yes!

Just like any other officer role, both part-time and full-time, their job descriptions are written into our constitution and must be followed. The President will be no different to this and whoever is elected to the position will be bound by the constitution just as the other officers will, following the job description that we the students set.

There were arguments that a President isn’t needed to simply bring officers together and that it is ridiculous to suggest that something as simple as getting together for a meeting requires the coordination of a President. All I say to this is look at the situation now.

There is a real lack of cooperation between the four full-time officers when it comes to fulfilling their roles in the interests of all students and to put it into the context of the above argument – meetings aren’t happening when they should and many other simple things aren’t being done.

Academic Officer Louise Withers Green is voting Yes Yes!

Many will know that the current full time officers have fundamental differences of beliefs between them in terms of where the priorities of the Union should lie, which is totally fine with regard to their democratic legitimacy as they were all elected to their respective positions based what they personally promised to do for students.

Unfortunately, what has not been fine is the fact that the divisions created between the full-time officers as a result of these differences of core beliefs and values, are having detrimental effects in the ability of the Union to work towards bringing positive change and opportunity for students.

We currently do not have a President, and the responsibilities that would be attached to this role are shared between the four full-time officers. So when, like now, there is a lack of unity between those officers, the ‘collective presidency’ that they are supposed to represent essentially fails, leaving a huge gap where they should be coordinating the other part-time officers, prioritising the direction and campaigns of the union and raising the most important issues to the University. This is not happening to the extent it should be purely because certain elected officers are unable to compromise and work with the greater interest of students in mind.

Student Trustee Tom Hesse is voting Yes Yes!

A president wouldn’t have any extra power in terms of voting ability over the other officers, nor would they be paid any more. When there is lack of consensus between the full-time officers, a president can act as a chair, and mediator between them all, facilitating their individual views and steering issues towards an agreement that sits best with them all.

A President could not just make decisions without the consent of the other full-time officers, because as a collective they would be able to out vote the President four to one. This is a coordination role, and responsibilities of a coordinator can exist without having more power over other officers. Anyone who says it is impossible for a coordinator-style President to not have more power over other officer is, quite simply, scaremongering.

Vote Yes Yes in the referendum at vote.ueastudent.com 

Editors’ Note: According to the terms of the referendum Question Two- ‘Should the “Campaigns & Democracy Officer” be renamed “President” and in addition take a lead role in campaigning to the University for students and coordinating the Student Officer team?’ a President would have the full duties and remit of a Campaigns and Democracy Officer, with an added co-ordination role.