Trouble at the top? Patel speaks
Carousel Featured News Student NewsPublished October 13, 2008 at 14:48 20 CommentsDee Patel, Union Sabbatical Officer, released a statement to the executive committee last week stating that he felt a “rift” had already formed within the executive committee.
The statement was presented to the rest of the Sabbaticals at an Executive Committee meeting held on Friday 3rd October, and their response was to say the least, negative. Although other members of the team also feel that a rift has formed, it seems that they believe this is more to do with Patel’s lack of punctuality and communication than the need for ‘a fresh start with faces and ideas’ that Patel requests.
Graham Ross, Services Officer, stated that he was “offended” by the statement, and blamed the rift between some of the sabbaticals and Patel on his lack of communication with his colleagues. He further added that this is bound to happen if you “shut your door, shut your blinds, lock yourself away,” as he alledges Patel does. Rob Hicks, Student Activities officer did not agree such a rift existed, saying “Just because we are disagreeing, doesn’t necessarily mean there is a rift”.
Ross also added that Patel, on occassion, “turns up in the office at half 11.” This is not the first time Patel has been accused of being unreliable. During the Sabbatical Elections in February, it was revealed to the student body that Patel had been removed as both a Union Council officer and a NUS delegate due to himmissing more than the allowed amount of meetings, forcing him to resign his positions. Timesheets have recently been introduced for the Sabbatical Officers to ensure that they fulfill their required hours.
However, Ross also revealed that there has been a long standing “personal rift” between himself and Patel, which has spanned from past elections. Despite efforts from both sides to bond, ultimately their personalities “clashed.”
In his statement, Patel further states that he feels it is, “wholly inappropriate to continue to accept vouchers on Monday nights.” The Sabbatical team readily admit accepting drinks vouchers, but did not accept them at the time of deciding which external club to host Monday nights and do not see them as incentives. Rob Hicks, Student Activities Officer, explained that this is true of many Society Presidents and Sport Captains and is not a unique feature of Zanzibar.
Wow, I’d love to be a fly-in-the-wall in Exec meetings. Good to the see the Ripple developing a backbone again…
11:30 – that is early for Patel. I Believe it is also wholly inappropriate to engineer such a rift in the way that he has. Someone needs to sort him out, make him turn up for work and do the job he was elected to do.
Releasing a statement is a cowardly way of dealing with a problem, I am glad that the ripple is actually tacking real issue this year and hope that this journalism continues.
No one would engineer a rift for the sake of it, it’s unconstructive and makes getting things done difficult. As far as I undestand, a Sabb is on a Zero hours contract (unlike any other non-casual employee of the building, eg managers, support staff, etc). So long has he gets the job done, forefills his remitt and above all has the building’s interests at heart (something Sabbs tend to forget at times) then that seems fair enough.
As per these are just personal opinons. I hope the Ripple is free to report the ongoing story in future…
Call this a generalisation, but It’s natural that people courageous enough to think they can fulfill a sabbatical role are going to meet a personality clash at some point. I mean it is likely in any circumstance, but given the nature of the job and the type of political people it attracts, there is a strong liklihood of clashing.
Its good to see the ripple not being used a a mouthpiece by the SABBS, i did find it distasteful that Graham feels that its a personal thing between him abd Dee, sounds to me like Dee expressed his opinion, and like Tom (above) says, if he has the best interest of sudents to heart, then good on him, too often the sabbs don’t.
credit should be given to dee patel for being brave enough to take this stand and to the ripple for being brave enough to treat this in the manner that they have. people who we elect should be prepared to make a stand when they feel it is right, how is this any different?
Good Afternoon, I am surprised that DEE has become a target by his fellow SABBS. They all need to show some respect and gratitude towards DEE. I am not condoning DEE’s attendance record but at the end of the day, DEE is at the Union far more than the other especially in the evenings and as a student I have found to be helpful and respectful towards my friends.
I think all the SABBS need to go out and engage with students alot more as they always stuck in thier office, at the end of the day if they want us to be apart of the Union come and talk to us and ask us (Your Members) what we want not what you think we want.
If you have any questions, please dont hesitate to contact me.
Take care
From
VP
With the issue of sabbatical officers not doing, or doing, the amount of work required of them and to warrant their salary, perhaps it would be helpful for them to somehow make it publicly available to students, evidence of what they have been up to, what they are working on, what they are acheiving etc etc. Its all very well having timesheets, but this does nothing to show students what is going on. It seems that whilst the students choose who is elected, not much communication between the sabbaticals and student body happens from that point onwards. By offering the sabbaticals this opportunity to inform us what they have been up to etc, those among them who are doing their jobs (of which Im certain most are!) would recieve due credit, and those who maybe arent up to scratch would be forced to admit so, and perhaps action could be taken to fix the problem.
Does this have anything to do with the whole monday night thing do you think? Im a 3rd year now thank god but ive been hearing some horror stories about who said what. I do agree with what laura has said though.
There are just a few points that need a bit of clarification here.
To Tom Rhodes’ point about the personal thing between Graham and Dee, personality clashes are inevitable in any walks of life, you can try and get on with everyone but it very rarely works that way. Dee was involved in Roschelle’s campaign against Graham last year in the Sabbatical Elections of which was a fierce competition. Dee was obviously up against Re-open Nominations, therefore was uncontested. It can be seen as that Dee was trying to pick his own Sabbatical team, of which Graham wasn’t part of his plans.
To VP’s quote ‘DEE is at the Union far more than the other especially in the evenings and as a student I have found to be helpful and respectful towards my friends.’ I have no doubt that Dee is respectful and helpful to your friends, that is in his nature. Though to your first part of the comment, Rob, Kirsten, Graham and Johanna are there at practically every Students’ Union event and nights, such as Mad-Fer-It, Red Leicester and ‘I Love Mondays’ plus events like ‘The Student Mixer’ and ‘The Redfearn Quiz’
To Laura Elvins’ point, The Sabbaticals provide a statement of thier work over the summer and at the end of every term to Union Council, if anyone wishes to attain a copy of this, please feel free to contact a member of Union Council and they will be willing to discuss this with you.
Finally to Maxi’s point, that is very fair and its true to say that a Sabbatical should take stand when something isn’t right. However due to Dee’s personal opinions plus his inconsistency and his inability to attend meetings and arrive to work early, its fair to say that he was open to criticism!
To come back onto your point Peter, I heard that you’ve harboured ill feelings to Dee since his ‘uncontested’ election. With you being his alleged ‘Campaign Manager’, you went and turned sides, and campaigned against him.
As for this campaign, weren’t some of your sabbatical friends involved? Maybe that is the reason Dee was supporting Roschelle, as he did stress in his hustings that he was not being treated fairly in his election.
With regards to the point you specified Dee’s ‘inconsistency and his inability to attend meetings’ , surely that proves Dee’s point about a rift, and gossiping, as since he has been elected, to my knowledge he has not had a single meeting with YOU, so how do you know of all this?
btw Peter, on a final note,
WHO ARE YOU?
Thanks for that Peter, but I think this is about someones principles and not their professional conduct. I can relate to Dee much more than I certainly can any of the other sabbs. At the end of the day all of the sabbs are human at the end of it and none of us are perfect, and out of this team Dee seems to be the most honest sabb in this regard.
I’ve Gott no idea you Peter could be…
Richard, ’some of your sabbatical friends were involved’ where is your evidence? you don’t have any! That’s your own and others warped opinions. Yes he has had a meeting with me actually. Once! However what ever evidence I have I will not disclose the source as it is unfair to bring people into this.
No Dee had been treated more than fairly. A late manifesto, a late declaration of finance and late trustee declaration form! All of key importance, none of which recieved any punishment! He got off that very lightly.
With regards to your ‘lack of evidence’ point, didn’t a sabbatical publicly apologise to Dee for their conduct during the elections? And was this not minuted? I believe my kind sir, THAT is my evidence.
It can be seen as that Dee was trying to pick his own Sabbatical team, of which Graham wasn’t part of his plans. Where is your evidence? It could be asserted that it is a ‘warped’ opinion.
his inability to attend meetings Could you provide us with a complete list of meeting that Dee Patel has been to since he was a sabbatical? Alongside how many he has missed?
And on a leaving note Peter,
ARE YOU EVEN A STUDENT?
To wade in i thik that Peter seems to forget that not all students are like his friends, and so not all will relate to his friends who are sabbs. If you are going to hark back to campaigns, being a keen follower of the politics of the union council, I feel its only fair that i state several things:
1~) almost ever SABB runs a coalition campaign, and all of the SABBs in power this year are no different, yes its all unofficial but the back room deals of “telll your supporters to vote for me and i’ll tell mine to vote for yo” are well known. ERGO: every SABB tries to get his own councilin power, some are just more successful than others.
2~) Last year was 1 of a very few times , and the first time in the last 10years an active RON campaign was ran against a SABB hopeful. The whole of the outgoing SABB team were behind the RON campaign and I recall seeing and hearing some very unflattering things said about Dee which were not neccessary. agai it all smacked of personal to me.
3~) Dee is no angel, he can be late, however I believe he won, not becasue he was unopposed but because people believed in his ability to get what he promisedd done, and thus far, he is doing that. looks to me like he is doing his job, just wish he would be on time every now and then.
4~)This being my final year, i can say 1 thing: over the years I have seen some things go down hill, SABB accountbility has gone, but most important, therre are students, and there is a building, BUT THERE IS NO STUDENS UNION!
AS the people at the top with al their infighting and bickering, promot only division….
AND whats this about monday nights?
RIPPLE ITS UR DUTY TO FIND OUT!
2~) Last year was 1 of a very few times , and the first time in the last 10years an active RON campaign was ran against a SABB hopeful. The whole of the outgoing SABB team were behind the RON campaign and I recall seeing and hearing some very unflattering things said about Dee which were not neccessary. agai it all smacked of personal to me.
For me this was one of the most shameful parts of the Sabb campaigning. FIlming the Hustings and looking at RON material it was the first “negetive” campaign I’ve seen during my time at university. Posters referred to “Will you trust Dee?”, “IS he reliable” etc, and these posters were put up in the union before official time, according to ERC mintues. http://www.leicesterstudent.org/pages/your_union/democracy/council/2007-08/agenda/21st_february_2008.html
Whilst Dee probably needs to buy a better alarm clock, he should be judged at the end of the Sabb year to see if he has made a positive impact on the student union and student population in general, something I hope he is able to achieve without the endless back stabbing, argueing and general time wasting that has a habit to occur in the corridoor of power.
Once again personal opinions expressed only….
For reference the Exec mintues with Dee’s statement…http://www.leicesterstudent.org/export/sites/Leicester/upload_gallery/031008.doc
Goodness gracious me, what a little situation we have here that’s crept up on us, accusations and counter accusations, but when we boil it down to the issue which lies at the heart of this debate, and you prune away all the deadwood, the heresay and conjecture, its a case of one man saying what he thinks is right.
Now what may or may not have happened in the run-up to his election is now at the mercy of history to judge, its not in any of our places to hold him to account.
At the point of being elected, like any other post holder elsewhere in the Students Union, he steps into the spotlight and it is the entitlement of everyone who particpated in the popular political process to hold him to account, just as we should anyone who is elected to hold office and represent us. But what precisely constitutes a good elected officer? An officer wearing a bespoke range of branded clothing, sporting position titles (presumably incase people forget) and the branding of affiliates? Or an officer wearing jeans and a t-shirt? Maybe a good officer is someone who smiles in public, but will no sooner stab you in the back if you block their path to NW1? Maybe its the company he keeps? Maybe its because they don’t choose to renew the agenda of “Do as we say, don’t do as we do”?
Or maybe its none of these points?
Maybe a good officer is infact defined and judged by their record when in office, and their willingness to stand up to scrutiny when called upon to justify their actions? Now what we’re seemingly forgetting is that there is a time and a place to hold elected officers to account, where any of us here or elsewhere within the Students Union can attend.
It is called Union Council.
What is of “key importance” is that the system in place to regulate and safeguard the integrity of the electoral system and the candidates, did not chew Dee Patel up, nor did it spit him out, and I think this is what is inflaming this debate. Not because of the personal conduct of Dee, but the fact that there have been attempts by disgruntled parties to utilise the system against Dee, all of which have summarily failed.
Personal attacks often have a blunt edge as they lack substance, and as yet there is very little substance to the arguement that this attack on Dee is warranted. Let the man do his job, and then at the end of term lets see how he has fared alongside the work of the other team members.
And plaudits to the Ripple for dipping its toes into this issue and for being brave enough to report on this.
Wow… dissention in the ranks… is the public finally sick of the breed of charismatic politician?