The Motion of Ensure

Returning to the history of the troubles, we next come to the motion of censure the Executive passed in the President for his statements in the Salient interview. Following a claim by Alan Philips that this motion was ultra vires (outside the powers of the Executive) a legal opinion was sought.

Although at the time it seemed a sensible idea, the lawyer's reply indicated that it was not so. It now seems inevitable that a legal opinion could not have solved the issue, as the dispute was in essence political. Not political in the sense of left against the right, but political in the sense that the Exe- page 6 cutive is a political body and was attempting to determine how it operated within the constitution. The lawyer replied that the motion of censure was ultra vires, as worded, as it implied that the Executive were seeking to change Mr Tees' mind about an issue. However, had the motion been reworded to remove this ambiguity, and stood as an instruction to the President to issue a denial on behalf of the Executive (as the official spokesperson) it would be a legitimate motion.

As the President was not prepared to us-sue any such statement, the lawyers opinion was useless, and the matter remained unresolved. By convention, Presidents have in the past been scrupulous to follow the Association's policy and the Executive's directives, regardless of their personal opinions. Mr Tees is not prepared to do this. Following the SGM, the members of the Association clearly indicated that they wanted him to remain President, they are obviously satisfied with this attitude and there is nothing the Executive can do about it. Those of us who hold differing opinions of a President's obligations can only hope that Mr Tees' successor is one who strives to represent the views of the Association rather than using the office as a platform for expressing his/her personal views....

In the debate on the censure motion Mr Tees made a particularly serious allegation. He said that the motion was pissed in "bad faith and with improper motives." Unfortunately he did not follow up this claim, as I believe he should have. If the Executive are acting in bad faith and with improper motive" they have no right to remain the Executive and should be dismissed. That Mr Tees did not pursue these serious allegations was deplorable. Either he believed they were true, in which he must have felt them incompetent to do their job. Or he did not believe the charge true in which case he should never have made it. By making the charge and not following it through, he must have done the Association a disservice.