SU’s Annual Members Meeting: 'This is not how democracy should be carried out'

prospects of Aerospace graduates. The motion prompted a series of impassioned speeches on both sides of the debate. Speaking on behalf of AeroSoc, Reuben Bouchard-Saunders proposed the motion be split to nd a middle ground, a move which generated procedural confusion and exasperation amongst audience and organisers alike.

Mark Ross

Co-Editor-in-Chief

The Students' Union Annual Members Meeting (AMM), which took place on Monday 13 February, has faced criticism from students following a series of controversial debates and procedural di culties.

The SU’s largest democratic event of the year, the AMM is a chance for students to have their voice heard mittee would attempt to suggest the results obtained were potentially invalid with no justi cation.’

Unfortunately, the debate prompted certain individuals to resort to abuse and aggressive behaviour both in-person and online. One individual, speaking via Microsoft Teams, is reported to have stated the Aerospace students ‘will never see the light of heaven’ for their connection to these companies.

An in-person speaker responding to AeroSoc’s arguments is also reported to have likened the department’s students to ‘murderers’.

The full results of the Annual Member’s Meeting are still to be published by the Student’s Union.

The Students' Union responded:

'Thanks to everyone who came to ourrecentAnnualMember’sMeeting.

'Wetakeourdemocraticprocesses veryseriouslyandthesewerestrictly followed by the elected students of the Democratic Standards CommitteeandelectedStudentCouncilChair.

'We are obviously concerned about the feedback that we’ve received from some students who attended the meeting.

'Everyone who has contacted us directly has been given the opportunity to meet with our democracy team–we’remorethanhappytodiscussanyissuesstudentswishtoraise, aswellassuggestionsforthefuture.

'I am also speaking to key sta members and our Democratic Standards Committee to look at how we can improve the experience at future democratic events.” by the Students' Union. Individuals can propose motions which, if passed, must be implemented by SU o cers for at least three years.

It is also a chance to decide whether to renew previous motions, which expire after a three-year period.

Tensions escalated when the motion ‘Let’s Disarm Bristol! Lobby the

In an open letter to the SU, Bouchard-Saunders has raised concern with the lack of ‘clear and effective’ responses to this behaviour, stating that ‘this is not how fair and free debate should be carried out’. Concerns were also raised regarding the procedural handling of the event. There were allegations of

Adam Michael, Union A airs O cer