Oxford University Student Union elections have kicked-off with technical difficulties as election candidates’ lists have not been e-mailed or published online.

Although OUSU candidates lists were released this afternoon, these have only been available in OUSU offices. Ollie Linch, the returning officer of the 2010 Statuatory Annual Elections, has admitted that his computer has suffered a “technical gllitch” and thus the lists have not been e-mailed or put on the OUSU website until the next day.

This means that the vast majority of students will still be unaware who is running for the elections.

Joseph Renzullo, a second year student at St John’s admitted, “I have no idea who’s running for the OUSU elections.”

However, students have accessed the information through facebook, where groups in support of candidates have appeared. Renzullo confirmed, “I have just seen on facebook that Daniel Lowe is running for VP Charities and Communities.”

Last year, OUSU elections were plagued by technical issues. The manifesto of one presidential candidate was omitted from the Joint Manifesto Booklet and many students did not receive their online voting code until the last few hours of voting time.

Current OUSU President Stefan Baskerville stressed the importance of OUSU’s engagement with students. He said to Cherwell, “Engaging with the process is crucial in making sure it leads to the best outcome. Students should read candidates’ manifestos, attend a hustings, and make an informed choice about who they want to lead their student union.”

Cherwell has obtained the full list of candidates for OUSU elections. There are three main slates with David Barclay and Jake Leeper competing for the position of OUSU president. The third slate is named Another Education Is Possible (AEISP) and comprises students linked to the Social Workers’ Party.

Below is the full list of candidates for all positions. Slate affiliations are denoted in italic.

President
David Barclay, Worcester
Jake Leeper, LMH

Vice President (Welfare and Equal Opportunity)
Tom Perry, St John’s

Vice President (Women)
Leanne Price, CCC – Leeper
Katharine Terrell, St Hilda’s – Barclay

Vice President (Graduates)

Vice President (Access and Academic Affairs)
Alex Bulfin, University – Barclay

Vice President (Charities and Community)
Daniel Lowe, St Edmund Hall
Will McCullum, Wadham – Leeper

Health and Welfare Officer
Eleanor Hafner, St Catz – Barclay

Access and Admissions Officer
Maryam Ahmed, Christ Church
Nathan Jones, St Catz – Barclay

Academic Affairs Campaign Officer
Hannah Cusworth, Brasenose – Leeper

Women’s Campaign Officer
Fraser Anderson, Sommerville – AEIP
Yuan Yang, Balliol – Leeper

Rent and Accomodation Officer
Charlotte Carnegie, Wadham – Leeper
Simon Spencer, Oriel – AEIP

International Students Officer
Ben Kindler, Mansfield – AEIP
Xiaowei Xu, University – Barclay

Common Room Liaison Officer
Jack Matthews, St Peter’s – Barclay

Environment and Ethics Officer
Ben West, St Anne’s – Barclay

Community Outreach and Charities Officer
Claire Handel, Hertford – Leeper

Students with Disabilities Officer
Danielle Fraser Solomon, Queen’s

Black and Minority Ethnic Students and Anti-Racism Officer
Matthew Tye, Exeter

LGBTQ Officer
Jasper Minton-Taylor, St John’s – Leeper

Mature Students Officer
Rainbow Chang, Wycliffe Hall

Graduate Academic Affairs Officer
Ian Lyons, St Edmund Hall – Barclay

Graduate International Students Officer
Deeksha Sharma, Exeter

Graduate Welfare Officer
David Bowe, Sommerville

Graduate Women’s Officer
Nishma Doshi, Linacre – Leeper

NUS Delegates
Preeti Dillon, CCC – Leeper
Ann Don-Bosco, St Catz – Leeper
Ricky Ghosh, University – Barclay
Amy Gilligan, Exeter – AEIP
Elliott Golend, Pembroke
Will Hartshorn, Hertford – Leeper
Rebecca Hay, Magdalen – AEIP
Jason Keen, St John’s – Leeper
Emily Keenan, St Hugh’s – Leeper
Ben Lyons, St Catz – Barclay
Harriet Maltby, Magdalen – Barclay
Sanjay Nanwani, St Peter’s – Leeper
James Norrie, Wadham – AEIP
Jim O’Connell, University – Barclay
Aled Owen, University – Barclay
Zoe Tyndall, Magdalen – Barclay

OUSU annual election nominations officially closed yesterday, marking the start of the race for election in 6th week . Candidates’ names are released later on Friday, when the process launches into full swing with hustings and campaigning consolidating support around the main candidates.

Sources say that there are two main candidates running for the main President position, each one on a slate with two sabbatical officers and several part-time officers.
Stefan Baskerville, current OUSU President, is encouraging students to get involved. “Engaging with the process is crucial in making sure it leads to the best outcome. Students should read candidates’ manifestos, attend a hustings, and make an informed choice about who they want to lead their student union.”

Hustings will be taking place all over Oxford in the coming week, mainly in JCRs, but there will also be a central hust held before the meeting of the University Council on Tuesday. They are a chance for students to find out what the candidates and their slates have got to offer. The voting will take place in the sixth week.

The candidates are also subject to strict rules. Each sabbatical candidate is allowed to spend only £130 on the campaign, whilst an executive position has an allowance of £50. No candidate, agent or activist may use their facebook profile picture or status to advertise voting intentions. They are not allowed to be interviewed by student media without the approval of the returning officer.

Baskerville reflected on the race last year, “The candidates can expect a real rollercoaster of highs and lows, involving bursts of adrenaline and significant sleep deprivation. It’s all worth it in the end though.”
OUSU is designed to represent Oxford students to the University, national government and the wider world and to provide student advice and support. But, Oxford’s collegiate system and the set-up of our JCRs have lead to some questioning the point of a central organising body.
“I don’t really know very much about OUSU. If I had a problem, my first port of call would be people at college”, said Matthew Hutchison, a fresher at St Anne’s.

Aside from providing free condoms and organising Freshers’ Fair, many find it difficult to pick out what OUSU does that benefits them. Last year’s election turn-out was only 16% of the total student body, implying that the majority of students simply aren’t that interested.
“At the moment OUSU isn’t seen as being as important as it should be. We need greater confidence and authority in positions, which will in turn result in greater weight with the university itself”, said David Merlin-Jones, OUSU representative for Exeter College.

Many describe OUSU as having an “image problem,” rather than being ineffective. Indeed, not all students are disillusioned with the institution, as Adam Gibbs, Wadham fresher and new SU Vice President, said, “I think it is vital to have an organisation like OUSU and I would consider running for an OUSU position where I can really make a difference.”

Baskerville confirmed that he would be happy to offer handshaking lessons to this year’s candidates, though was careful to add, “All candidates will have to have equal time.”

OUSU elections have historically suffered from a low turn-out. Now, it’s up to this year’s candidates to convince students that through OUSU they can bring about tangible and worthwhile benefits to the student body.

Teddy Hall JCR have rejected attempts by a potential JCR presidential candidate to overturn restrictions on election canvassing.

A second year student intending to run for JCR president this year, proposed a motion to allow students running in elections to promote themselves in any way they choose.

Opposition focused on the issue of money, as it was widely believed that the candidate intended to sponsor the Teddy Hall football team, placing a picture of himself on the front of their kit.

During the JCR meeting, he spoke about the hypothetical possibility of doing so, although he did not explicitly announce a specific plan. It was clarified that Steel could sponsor the team if he wished, but would not be allowed to promote any campaign in doing so under current rules.

Present restrictions allow presidential candidates to put up seven manifesto posters and perform their hustings speech. By removing these restrictions candidates would be able to produce as many posters as they liked, create facebook groups and canvass door-to-door. Teddy Hall JCR passed a motion banning door-to-door canvassing last year.

The proposer argued that the removal of restrictions would provide more information to those voting, resulting in a better-informed electorate. This would hopefully end apathy in the JCR elections.

The motion failed with 40 votes against, 15 in favour and 11 abstained. The motion needed two thirds of all present to be in favour to pass.

It was also highlighted that the current system encourages freshers to run, maintains an equal footing for all students and prevents presidential elections from being a popularity contest.

Charles Wilson, Teddy Hall’s JCR secretary voted against the motion. He commented, “This motion would have led to skewed elections, discouraging those on uncertain financial footing from running, possibly preventing well qualified candidates from gaining office. I think the JCR saw this as fundamentally unfair, as well as detrimental in the long run, and overwhelmingly voted it down.”

Those supporting the motion highlighted that students are likely to see through those throwing money ar

ound, with the proposer emphasizing the need to make it more like real world elections.

He noted, “money’s central to getting your message out – look at the New York mayoral election and Bloomberg’s campaign. The US is the heart of democracy so I can’t see why it can’t happen in Oxford.”

One student also observed in the debate that in a recession the economy needs all the help it can get, encouraging students to support the motion. One first year added, “I was all for it personally, I though he spoke with eloquence and dignity, but was shot down by a number of narrow minded people.”

Charlotte Seymour, JCR President commented, “There was a little victory for common sense in the Teddy Hall JCR this weekend.”

OUSU faces a staggering loss of £58,000, according to an interim financial report on the year ended, which was presented to council last week. The predicted loss would leave OUSU with debts of £39,000.

The loss, for the financial year ending July 2009, has been largely attributed to the underperformance of Oxford Student Services Limited (OSSL), a trading subsidiary of OUSU, which is responsible for services such as Freshers’ Fair, the Careers Handbook and The Oxford Student newspaper.

The size of the loss was completely unexpected. According to official reports, OUSU had been predicting a small surplus until May. OUSU President Stefan Baskerville was only alerted to the actual figures within the last two weeks.

Ben Britton, St Catherine’s College MCR co-president commented on the loss, “If OUSU wishes to gain respect and trust within this University, then they should learn to manage themselves and their interests better. This loss illustrates quite how incompetent the OUSU management really are in dealing with our money.”

The main reason suggested in the report for OSSL’s deficit is the subsidiary’s lower-than-expected performance in raising advertising revenue. Although OUSU predicted a revenue of £65k, only £39k was actually raised. The report notes, “This may have been caused by over optimistic budgeting expectations, changes in personnel selling the advertising, a change in the economic climate or a combination of all of these factors.”

In response to the ongoing criticism of the Students’ Union financial structure, the new sabbatical team has vowed to produce a monthly financial report on OSSL’s activities. This will include detailed publishing of income and expenditure of OSSL’s main activities, including The Oxford Student newspaper. Up until now, there was no attribution of space cost and some staff time between OUSU and OSSL. This has resulted in skewed financial reporting on OSSL’s profit performance. An October JCCSM paper has pointed out the need to reform these reports.

Furthermore, OUSU will conduct an internal review of the existence of OSSL by the end of the academic year. In the report they will consider which OSSL activities could be transferred to OUSU, as well as deliberating on any

other changes that might be prudent.

However, some will argue that these changes do not to go far enough in increasing financial transparency.

Some of OSSL’s activities are suspected of making losses if attributed for space and staff time. However, no figures are currently available which break down in detail the finances of OSSL’s services and publications.

Baskerville defended the information OSSL was keeping under-wraps, arguing that revealing the details of certain contracts will make it more difficult for OSSL to negotiate with companies in the future. He said, “That could have a significant and negative impact upon the revenues OSSL is able to generate, which serve to fund OUSU’s work for students.”

OUSU is also considering restructuring the management of its activities to reduce their financial losses. In a debate scheduled for 5th Week, OUSU will discuss a proposal that “as far as possible, all publications shall be published in OUSU,” and that each OUSU or OSSL publication should have a publication board consisting of General Manager, Publications and Media co-ordinator and the Editors of the publication.

The interim financial report also speculated that substantial changes in OUSU staff arrangements during the year have led to an overspend in staffing costs which will not be repeated in subsequent years. The report notes, “This will have amounted to £15k in the period under review.”

Another key problem was the need to write off and provide for £12k of bad debts.

OUSU’s indebtedness is a concern for the University, which currently makes up the bulk of OUSU’s funding.

Professor Tim Softley, the chair of the Joint Committee of Council with Student Members refused to comment on the issue until further discussions are made by the University.

OUSU has assured students that the loss will not result in a cut in services, though the budget will have to be revisited and amended. An OUSU source predicts that the Students’ Union will lose money at the end of this year, calling into question OUSU’s ability to be financially responsible.

In response to the revelations, the OUSU team is seeking to assure students that the creation of a Budget Committee will result in greater scrutiny, so such problems can be tackled earlier in the year.

However, the establishment of this committee, alongside several others, has been delayed to Hilary term due to lack of communication between OUSU and University authorities. In a Cherwell report on the issue, Stefan Baskerville likened the situation of sorting out the committees to trying to deal with victims of a “car crash”.

Despite promises of heightened scrutiny, many at OUSU consider the problems to be more fundamental, and believe that OUSU needs a completely new funding structure. Baskerville has proposed that more funding be sourced from colleges. However, attempts to pass a similar proposal by the JCCSM working group through the University bursars failed in Trinity last year.

A problem complicating the funding reform debate is that there are legal issues surrounding OUSU’s aims to achieve a registered charity status.

The Queen’s College student body has elected a teddy bear as their new JCR President in Monday’s elections.

‘Clumsy Teddy’ was backed by Nathan Roberts, the ex-JCR President, who husted on his behalf.

Elected in Trinity term last year, Roberts was stripped of his position over the vacation after achieving a 2:2 in Prelims. Stefan Baskerville, OUSU President, 30 JCR Presidents and a number of Queen’s students protested against this decision by the college authorities, claiming they should not have a right to impose on the democratic elections of the JCR.

Roberts was then refused an appeal against the decision. In the re-election, he put forward the mascot and campaigned on his behalf. It is estimated that the turnout for the election was over 200, higher than in Roberts’ first election.Teddy won with 50.3% of first-preference votes. There were two opposing candidates, who managed to amass 37.5% of the votes between them, while 10% of voters wanted to reopen nominations.

Roberts claimed that there were two reasons for the teddy’s electoral success. “The first is that he and his supporting team presented a strong vision for the JCR, which seemed to chime with its members. It was in many ways an election like any other, with competing ideas on what we should work towards in the coming year, which Teddy won.

“The second is that we want College to know that we’re not happy. At a meeting at the start of term the JCR voted no-confidence in the actions taken by College, but also resolved to accept the decision of the Governing Body, in the event of an appeal. But in refusing the appeal, I believe that the Provost failed to make the best decision for the members of his College, by both undermining our position and setting a very dangerous precedent.

“Teddy isn’t here to ruin relations with our college. His team and the exec still plan to work hard and communicate with senior members. But in voting Teddy we have made it clear that we won’t allow anyone to dictate the make-up of our Executive other than through our own electoral processes, and hope it will not happen again.”

Portia Roelofs, a student at Queen’s, hit back at college authorities. “It’s a shame that College have dealt with the issue so wrong-headedly, and I’m concerned that in future other students will suffer from a system where appeal of disciplinary decisions has been blanketly ruled out. Interestingly, non-members now have right that members of Queen’s don’t have, as it has become clear that you are only able to appeal a decision of TRC once you’ve been expelled. Which seems a bit bizarre.”

Roberts is certain that Teddy will be a successful President. “Despite his quiet nature, Teddy is still going to work hard on behalf of the JCR through a host of translators and exec representatives. We expect the coming year to be extremely productive for the undergraduate body at Queen’s.”

Roelofs agrees with this view. “I am very pleased at Clumsy Teddy’s success and look forward to a bright future. He has the experience and the policies to improve the overall student experience at Queen’s, for everyone. I voted for the best candidate for President in the elections at the end of Trinity term and voted for Teddy in these elections to show that I didn’t think that the intervention of the SCR during the summer vac was fair, justified or legitimate. I am profoundly proud to be a member of the JCR in light of this action.”

Roberts hopes this will be the end of the saga. “We’ve established our position on the presidency, but it’s now time to move on and ensure that all the Queen’s common rooms work together with the best interests of the college at the heart of the agenda.”

John McElroy, Somerville JCR President who backed Roberts two weeks ago commented, “it’ll be interesting to see the response from Queen’s SCR. They can’t really ignore this – imagine the Governing Body meeting when Teddy turns up to represent the students!”

Not all Queen’s students were backing Roberts and Teddy. Ben Cahill, commented, “It’s an incredibly petulant move which has been orchestrated and allowed by self-important hacks.”

He added, “College has done nothing wrong, and the scare tactics employed by Nathan in his Teddy Bear election material..needlesly, deliberately and irresponsibly obscure the facts. The whole thing is a joke.”

A representative of the college declined to comment, stating that this was a matter for the JCR and the academic department.