Sabb in firing line as contradictory motions pass

Last Friday saw the long-awaited results of the Students’ Union referenda on campus which were received amidst controversy, heated arguments and a confusing election result.

Motions removing advertising and sponsorship bans and to reaffirm the advertising and sponsorship bans were carried by a plurality vote. These conflicting results left many voters confused. Andy Perkins, SU Governance and Finance Officer, tried to explain the situation and how it will be dealt with by the Union: “Constitutionally it’s down to Presidential interpretation. Personally, I reckon the sponsorship bans will remain but Union Council won’t be able to impose them anymore”.

Sami Wannell, Welfare Officer agreed with Perkins, stating that, “The normal procedure in this kind of situation would be that the President stands to interpret the result… watch this space, I guess!”

The Sabbatical team has also been accused of abusing their position to encourage students to vote in a particular way in the referenda. Facebook group invitations and a mass e-mail are seen to have broken constitutional rules. It is claimed that the email unfairly encouraged voting for removing the sponsorship ban, so any club and society can choose for themselves which companies they get money from.

The Students’ Union constitution states that “existing officers may not use the facilities provided by their office for campaigning in any referenda”.

Isaac Newton Acquah, Communications Officer, thought to be responsible for these actions, has reaffirmed his stance on the referenda: “You will have to trust the individuals, societies and the SU to do what is best … There are hundreds of oil/energy companies that have done no wrong and yet we are blanket banning them all. I feel its an environmental ‘cut down on green house gases’ more than ‘ethical union’ policy.”

In a subsequent e-mail, the Elections Group stated they “wish to clarify that any message that was sent out … or any Facebook invitations you may have received, were not authorised by the Elections Group and action has been taken on these breaches to the referenda regulations”.

{{ quote “The procedure in this situation would be that the president interprets the result” – Sami Wannell }}

The _Boar_ has learned that there have been calls from some parties for Acquah to be questioned on his role and potentially subjected to a vote of no confidence at Union Council.

Alex Twiss, SU Sports Officer, wanted the ban on advertising lifted to allow for advertising and sponsorship from companies including McDonalds, Esso and Shell. He claims this will put the power back into the hands of club executives to decide if these companies are ethical enough to be sponsorship providers.

Twiss claims he has “information from unbiased sources to show that the companies’ ethical statuses have changed and improved their record sufficiently” for the ban to be lifted. Continued economic hardship has made securing sponsorship for Societies more difficult, which has partly contributed to the Union being in negative financial reserves.

Twiss claimed that society executives deserve the freedom of choice over sponsorship sources: “10,000 members of Warwick Sport have not had their say. Sponsors are quite a contributor to funding in sports clubs due to funding cuts, and a lot of these clubs and societies have had no say whatsoever yet it effects them on the ground.”

Voting to maintain sponsorship bans will, apparently, secure the Union’s position to challenge university practices in a much more coherent manner. Some see this as an essential means for speaking out against the alleged human rights abuses, assassinations, environmental destruction and air pollution of the companies with a dubious ethical status.

Previously this trend has been most successful with university boycotts, as shown by several hundred universities who protested against Fruit of the Loom’s work violations in Honduras sweatshops in January 2009. The 1980s saw university students boycott Barclays Bank, protesting against its involvement in the South Africa apartheid which led to a 12 percent drop in Barclays’ share of the UK student market.

Puneet Dhaliwal, a student advocate for sponsorship bans spoke passionately about his feelings about potential sponsors, saying: “If we care about freedom and autonomy surely we should act to stop the curtailment of freedoms of workers by multinational companies … Just because we are here halfway across the world, does not mean we should not care.”

### Results

#### Removal of Particular Advertising and Sponsorship Bans

– For: 1045
– Against: 731
– Absain: 121

_Motion carried_

#### Maintaining an Ethical Union by Reaffirming Advertising and Sponsorship Bans

– For: 858
– Against: 755
– Abstain: 166

_Motion carried_

#### Changing the Way this Union is Run

– For: 919
– Against: 344
– Abstain: 503

_Motion carried_

#### Twin with Students in Gaza

– For: 878
– Against: 1155
– Abstain: 157

_Motion failed_

#### Disaffiliation from WMANUS

– For: 1268
– Against: 117
– Abstain: 238

_Motion carried_

#### Ethical Banking

– For: 941
– Against: 489
– Abstain: 189

_Motion carried_