By Joe Rukin
NUS Students With Disabilities Conference is usually regarded as the 'fluffiest' of all the NUS conferences, but despite the usual air of consensus when it came to the policy debates, this year it included some of the backbiting, intrigue and controversy normally reserved for national conference.
It was at SWDC, held over two days at the Norbeck Castle hotel in Blackpool, that several rows involving SWD Officer, Barry Farleigh came to a head. A no confidence motion was proposed against him on the Monday morning (full text below), following on from a number of censures during the year. The motion itself was pretty damning, claiming that Farleigh had "..submitted a report for the NUS NEC Report And Plan which is factually incorrect, misleading, and insulting..", "..ignored Conference mandates and has pursued his own agenda.." and "..has failed in his duties all year..".
The vote of no-confidence was passed, and Farleigh was immediately 'sacked',
having his conference credentials and delegate card removed. It had been proposed that there would be a 'casual vacancy', meaning not only would next years SWDO be elected, but also one to take up the post until the summer. However, as no one came forward for the three-month post it was decided that the winner of the main election would start immediately. There were two candidates, Shannon O'Neill & Barry Farleigh. Although Farleigh had just been 'sacked' and technically was no longer a student, as he was on the day nominations closed, Elections Committee said there was no problem with his candidacy.
Then, the flame war began. Almost a year ago disciplinary proceedings were instigated within NUS against Farleigh for sexual harassment. He lost both the procedure and a subsequent appeal. This can now be reported as it became 'public' knowledge at SWDC, but in no more depth as legal arguments from all sides are still ongoing. Notably, these are not between the different 'sides', but they are now united (of sorts) in condemning NUS for having a 'flawed' disciplinary procedure.
However statements made it clear that one of the complainants had been O'Neill, with delegates who supported Farleigh claiming that a deliberate campaign against him had been ongoing, driven by a "hidden political agenda".
O'Neill's supporters complained that after the No-Confidence vote had gone through, they had suffered from intimidation and verbal abuse. Natasha Hirst said
"I had my disability questioned, and faced homophobia - a situation that I have never experienced at SWD Conference before, and one that I hope doesn't arise again there in future. Before people say "well what do you expect from NUS conferences?" I'll make the point that SWD conference is usually very friendly and supportive and I have never felt unsafe there at the 3 previous SWD conferences I have been to. I actually did feel too unsafe and intimidated to sit in front of conference and answer questions on my report. One point I do want to reiterate is that the No-Con was based purely on our dissatisfaction with Barry on a professional level, and was not to do with personal/political issues as has been claimed."
With voting blocks meaning the election would be on a knife edge, Farleigh's argument convinced enough delegates to give either their support or the benefit of the doubt. Amazingly the same people who had sacked him the day before then re-elected him with Barry getting 39 votes against Shannon's 26.
SWDC: The positive side
Emergency Motion: No Confidence In SWD Officer
Conference believes:
1. That SWD Committee serves a vital role in supporting the SWD Officer, taking the SWD campaign out to the regions and nations and ensuring that the specific needs of disadvantaged groups - such as women or black students - are not neglected.
2. That the SWD Committee has only met once since July, and that the SWD Officer has neglected to call and organise further meetings of Committee due to a lack of respect for democracy and accountability and a disregard for the skills and knowledge of SWD Committee members.
3. That mandates were set for the SWD Campaign by the 2002 NUS SWD Conference, but the SWD Officer has ignored Conference mandates and has pursued his own agenda.
4. That the SWD Officer has submitted a report for the NUS NEC Report And Plan which is factually incorrect, misleading, and insulting to LGB students.
Conference Further Believes:
1. That on Wednesday 22nd January Charles Clarke revealed the government's strategy on Higher Education Funding in a white paper, an announcement which will affect all current and future HE students.
2. The SWD Officer has neglected to represent the specific needs, views and concerns of SWD regarding education funding at this crucial time.
3. The SWD Officer has failed to represent SWD on the National Executive Committee of NUS and thus has failed to ensure that the NUS response to the education funding proposals included specific material about the additional financial support necessary for SWD to access higher education.
4. That given that the SWD Officer has failed in his duties all year, the lack of SWD-specific response to the education funding proposals demonstrates finally his lack of commitment to our campaign.
Conference understands
1. That expressing no confidence in an officer removes them from office immediately. The officer elected at this conference will take over as soon as they are elected, and serve for the remainder of 2002-3 and for 2003-4.
Conference Resolves:
1. To have no confidence in the SWD Officer
SWD Conference, the negative side
SWD Conference, the positive side
|
Funding Campaign- Tools, Information & Advice.
|
| >>
Charles Clarke has now delivered the White Paper which will map out student and university funding in the future.
As expected it contains a lot of bad news, with debts of over £20k planned and funding cuts in other areas which will see us move closer to a two-tier system of Higher Education.
So here is a resource centre for student activists to help oppose the proposals.
White Paper Summary & what you can do
 | Left A poster template for
the national lobby. To access a word version RIGHT click here and choose 'save target as'
Right If you can get them done, here's a template of a postcard to send to MPs. Click Here to see more |  |
| >>
Amnesty International say a letter is worth ten protesters,
so here's the easy way to get a letter to your MP. You may not believe this, but not all MPs have published email addresses.
However, you can go straight to a web based fax form just by entering your postcode. More Info and Petitions
|
|
