The whole meeting takes place over Facebook Messenger.
Present: SP (SRO), JC (Vice-President), EM (President), WE (Stool), KB (JRO), SG (JRO), BT (JRO)
Complaint about post on JCR Facebook page by CG
Complainant: Hey I take issue with the latest post on the Cuth’s Facebook page about SU assembly. It’s not just summaries of the SU motions, its CG’s personal opinions, which would be problematic regardless of if there’s an election going on if she wants fair results to her survey, but I think is very problematic given she’s using the Cuth’s page to promote her own opinions under her name whilst campaigning for an election.
SP: So I have received a complaint that CG posting this with her name on this effectively means campaigning on a Cuth’s JCR page. The complainant alleges that the fact she has used her position name and published her personal opinions makes it an even stronger case of campaigning. So can everyone give me their thoughts if they think this was campaigning and then we can discuss sanctions?
BT: I guess the question is whether it’s campaigning or her just fulfilling her current role? She did just share it in the freshers group as well.
SG: I would say she was just fulfilling her current role, but is it prohibited for her to do that whilst running for another position?
SP: She isn’t allowed to use any privileges that are attached to her position that can influence the election. Candidates aren’t allowed to campaign on official Cuth’s pages. Guess the question is “Is it campaigning?” So me and EM had a conversation with her pointing out that she can’t post with her personal account but only with the JCR one.
EM: It’s not campaigning, BUT I did ask her to use the JCR page to post earlier today. So I don’t know why she posted as the JCR this morning and herself this evening. It’s been taken down though right?
JC: I have several thoughts on the issue:
1. I disagree that there are any personal opinions. The post is just a summary of what the motions aim to do, none of which was submitted by CG, and if the complainant had actually bothered to read it that seems pretty clear.
2. She’s following a new social media policy which was recommended in the most recent exec meeting: post as the JCR then share as yourself to the freshers’ groups. It’s unfortunate that the first time this has happened has coincided with an election, but she is just following (new) policy.
3. The timeline for Assembly means that the appropriate time for sharing this was always likely to clash with our period of campaigning.
4. It’s perfectly reasonable to include a name because no one likes emailing a nameless account, and under normal circumstances people would do that. However, it also seems reasonable to avoid having a name in official posts in future. But I don’t think including a name with good reason is inherently against the campaign rules.
6. The campaign rule 3.4.2 specifically mentions re-purposing of social media pages, which isn’t what has happened here. The page was used for its intended purpose, with nothing to do with the election.
Based on all of the above, my view is that there is no campaigning involved in this post and that there has been no violation of the rules.
KB: I personally don’t see how they counts as campaigning because it’s her other role?? and doesn’t mention being VP??
JC: And related to that, I would argue she hasn’t disobeyed EM’s instructions, because she posted as the JCR and it was just shared by her.
BT: Yeah I agree with JC.
EM: She’s hasn’t gone against what I said! I just thought she might naturally have posted as the JCR has I’d mentioned it this morning.
*We move to a vote*
*Unanimous decision that there has been no violation of the campaign rules.*
Complaint about MP post on Instagram
SP: Do Instagram accounts run by different people for different people for different people count as a violation? It’s run by SW whose on his team. Under the name of SR who is not.
EM: Could he edit the name for a bit?
SP: OK, I’ll ask them to.