11 comments by 2 or more people

1. Luke Parks

   Whatever John's been accused of, I suspect he could get off on a technicality, because as far as I can tell, the disciplinary proceedures haven't been followed:

   19 The Chair and the Investigating Officer will decide whether to invoke the disciplinary proceedings. A letter will be sent to the appellant on
   the following working day.

   23 The Hearing will be held between three and eight working days after the decision to invoke the proceedings.

   25 The letter sent to the appellant will:

   • outline the alleged offence;
   • give the date, time and place of the hearing;
   • inform the appellant that he/she has the right to bring a friend;
   • inform the appellant that he/she may provide written statements for themselves and/or witnesses to the Chair at least 24 hours in
     advance of the Hearing;
   • inform the appellant that he/she has the opportunity to call witnesses but must inform the Chair of any intention to do so at least 24 hours in advance of the Hearing;
   • inform the appellant that copies of the witness statements and incident report will be available for collection from Union North reception, at least 24 hours in advance of the Hearing;
   • give the make-up of the Disciplinary Panel, and inform the appellant that if they wish to lodge any concern about the membership of the panel, that they must do so either verbally or by letter within 48 hours of receiving the letter;
   • inform the appellant that if they fail to appear, the case will be held in their absence;
   • inform the appellant of their right to have the hearing recorded and that they must inform the Chair of this wish at least 24 hours in advance of the Hearing.

   16 Apr 2005, 15:46

2. Well, that will depend on whether the Investigating Officer and the Chair of the Disciplinary Panel have yet decided to invoke disciplinary proceedings. They might be waiting until term starts, or might not have met yet. It would be a little unfair to hold a Hearing in the middle of the holidays, of course.

   16 Apr 2005, 16:20

3. Luke Parks

   It's a bit odd to be waiting this long. And according to the minutes and the best of my recollection, the only thing John said in the AGM was that some of Elections Group's money had been misallocated/misappropriated, and he surely can't be being raked over the coles for that.

   16 Apr 2005, 16:24

4. Ah yes, the AGM minutes [doc].

   I wouldn't like to speculate on the specifics of charges that may or may not be being brought against John… I will but note the University's regulations on meetings, which imply that anyone bringing charges on the basis of those minutes had better be able to prove that John was guilty of defamation.

   16 Apr 2005, 17:23

5. Luke Parks

   They couldn't prove defamation; they'd have to prove that he'd defamed a named individual.

   16 Apr 2005, 17:48

6. Well, I'm no lawyer. :) It would have to be proven that the alleged slander (or is it libel if it was recored in the minutes?) actually caused damage to a reputation… it would all be horribly expensive, anyway.

   Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

   16 Apr 2005, 18:00

7. Luke Parks

   Discuss

   Three words: abuse of process. Surely any Union member has the right to take any position they like in a Union meeting. Pursuing a vendetta because someone is asking uncomfortable questions simply reeks of an attempt to impose Orwellian self-censorship. What's the point of having meetings where we're supposed to hold Union officers to account if we can't do it without subsequently being hauled in front of a disciplinary? By the bye, do you think it might be something to do with your referendum motion on Sabb expenses?

   17 Apr 2005, 23:49

8. Luke Parks

   You could always ask which policy/part of the Constitution/Appendix you have breached.

   17 Apr 2005, 23:55

9. John Cross announces once again that he believes the money to have been misappropriated…

   Well, that's slightly unfair – according to the minutes, your words were "misappropriated or misallocated". Hmm. Then Simon goes on to represent your voting against the accounts as maligning everyone up to the Union's auditors, which is just ridiculous. In fact, if these allegations are ever made publically, you might well have grounds to sue for defamation yourself, John. ;-) Oh, the irony.

   So does this mean that anyone voting against the accounts would therefore be "impugning the reputations and integrity" of everyone listed? Whatever happened to the idea of a 'free and fair' vote?

   Do keep us in touch with what happens with this, John.

   18 Apr 2005, 10:01

10. You're completely right, Luke, this is nothing more than an abuse of power by the President of our Students' Union. To keep John hanging on for 50 days is patently ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than harassment. No one has suggested that John has broken any of the Union's Constitution, its Appendices, Regulations or the Student-Staff protocol. In that light, its inconceivable that a Union Disciplinary should be called. If its a legal question, then it should be dealt with by a court; except that I've spent 4 years studying English law, and I know that no court in this land would even entertain such a ridiculous case.
    The overreaction to simple scrutiny of incorrent accounting could lead one to conclude that the Union's accounts need examining…but I wouldn't know about that, I'm only a trustee with legal responsibility for the Union's finances.
    I believe that, where its in line with the Union's rules, a member should be entitled to ask questions, and support and oppose business at Union meetings without fear of recrimination or harassment. This attempt to silence a critic who, let's not forget, has worked tirelessly for the Union for more than 2 years is not only unjust, it is a disgrace. I am considering my position. Don't miss Council in week 3.

    18 Apr 2005, 13:34

11. Closed to comments for now, to force you all onto John Cross: defence case, part I. :) It's always nice to keep up-to-date with the evidence.

    19 Apr 2005, 04:07

Trackbacks

Trackback URL: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/tretout/entry/john_cross_is/trackback/