Alex Mitchell’s Response to VNC
On my campaigns budget, I was punished for going over budget by 5.6% and therefore had 5.6% of my votes taken off of me. I would first of all like to state to the council that this is a punishment that I have already received for my actions. These actions are described as “intentional dishonesty,” in this VNC, that is not the case. Upon completing my budget I got my dates mixed up and was confused when I had used an electronic device and when I had not. Upon realising that students asked me to vote at halls I presented them with a laptop getting minimal votes that I weren’t even sure were for me, I declared this as quickly as possible. My budget was already completed and as I had not intended to use a device for that day, it did not occur to me until too late that this had occurred. I was punished and accept that punishment with more votes being taken off of me than the 3 days my devices took of vote’s altogether. Doubling or tripling votes as it is hence stated in this document is a complete over exaggeration.
To confirm and conclude this section, this was not dishonesty, merely a mistake and a mix up with my budget.
For those of you who know me, the sentences “you are irrelevant” and “The SU doesn’t need you” are phrases that I simply would not say. Rebecca Lee states, “He encouraged me among other people that I know personally to run for sabbatical officer as well as other elected positions. I feel this VNC is unfounded and leaning on a libellous document.” I have always been open and encouraging to all the other candidates taking part in election even saying hello to those who were running against me on a daily basis. I have a small report from Harriet Smailes our next wellbeing officer, not an anonymous source, stating “I did spend a fair amount of time campaigning with him and found his behaviour and conduct to be nothing but good and proper. He acted in a way that clearly showed he knew how to campaign appropriately and conducted himself in a way that reflected best on him – of course, in an attempt to gain students’ confidence in him. I do not believe Alex would have done anything to taint his campaign, let alone ruin his reputation outside of his current and future roles in the Union.” I also have something from fellow campaigner, council officer and our next Activities Officer Dan Schofield stating“I believe some of the issues in this proposal have already been investigated and dismissed by our Independent Returning Officer, to which I have faith in the democratic processes of our SU. Although I campaigned as an individual the nature of the campaigning period meant I spent a lot of time with the other candidates. This meant I was often a first-hand observer to Alex’s approach when speaking to students and I never saw him conduct himself in anything other than a friendly and professional manner. Based on my own observations I see no reason to suspect anything untoward occurring during the elections. As a result I am extremely surprised by this ‘no confidence’ proposal. Finally, I would suggest that a winning margin of approximately 500 votes speaks volumes from the student body who have opted to return Alex to represent them for next year.”Before the election process because I had made the conscious decision to run I was not allowed to give any advice to prospective candidates, it is therefore impossible that I dissuaded students to run for anything.
Much of my dialect has been taken out of context in this document, for instance replace suggesting that I pressure students to neglect their studies with “make sure you publicly show your face on campus,” after a discussion about dissertations shows how easy it is to misinterpret what was originally meant.
This entire document has interpreted my actions over the 2 weeks of campaigning to be negative, disengaging to students and claim that is the reason I should be dismissed. They forget in Autumn I increased voter turnout by 1/3. They forget that more students queued to have their bike repaired in my campaign and thanked me for it, than the Diner queue. They forget that I have submitted a work booklet to the NUS that will guarantee a gold award for Green Impact next year involving multiple campaigns and initiatives where students were involved. This should also be taken into consideration when you are choosing to remove someone for good.
It is clear that this document has tried to attach aspects of the IRO’s report to my conduct during the election process; this is something that I do not even know is accurate which means they surely do not either. The IRO’s report mentions no names of candidates so to assume is very dangerous and misleading. All photos placed on social media were taken in good faith and any issues were dealt with right away and resulted in them not being used and deleted. Alexandra Innes, not another anonymous source stated “I would like to oppose the vote of no confidence against Alex Mitchell, Engagement Officer. I am a member of his campaign team and worked with Alex on occasions during the two week election period and I can confirm that he remained professional at all times. He treated students with respect and was polite when talking to them; he was not forceful or aggressive in his manner. I trust Alex to do an exceptional job as Education Officer as he has as a successful Engagement Officer this year.”The allegation that individuals who had to remain neutral were in my photos is completely refuted as none of those individuals are on my online portfolio. I forced no one to vote against their will at all, and the argument of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is frankly absurd and undemocratic, I prefer and I hope you do as well the term innocent until proven guilty, and there is certainly a lack of that here.
This last section about confidentiality is the part that I am most concerned about. And before going into it this next part it is about sexual harassment and assault. The allegations made against me here are entirely untrue, I have not leaked confidential information to anyone about sexual assault victims, neither have I trivialised the concept. I believe that victims of these crimes need support and as a result of this have supported Rosanna’s fantastic work on this issue and during the Vajanuary fair went down to visit the crisis centre stall to see how the SU in the future could help with them and other organisations. This would have quite an effect on anyone and it makes you question whether or not you have done something wrong and what you can do to make it right. After much thinking I have to defend myself and say that these allegations are false and I have done nothing wrong in this area. Further to this point, all issues of sexual assault come through the wellbeing officer providing further evidence that I would have no access to any cases to make comments on.
The question of democracy has to be raised before I conclude. Students took part in this election based on candidates’ manifestos and I was able to obtain 900 votes, more than double the candidate in second place. I would like to point out that we as a room of 60 students have to represent the 22’000, and therefore you should not just base this on your own personal opinion. To remove me from my post will undermine those students on grounds that either don’t have enough evidence to support, or are untrue. In my opinion there are not enough facts here, only hearsay which is not enough to base a formal VNC on. All this appears to be is an attempt from some students who simply dislike me being in this position as is evident with 3 out of the 5 names on the document submitted being my competitors in the election process. An interesting question to ask would be if I was so terrible an Engagement Officer and this proposal is also questioning that, why was this issue and a VNC not discussed before election campaigning took place?
In response to this I urge you to vote against this motion, not for the sake of me, my job, my honour or integrity, but for the students who voted and the democratic process they took part in. This VNC is a rash reaction by individuals who were disappointed at losing the election, and unfortunately some people have to lose. It is inaccurate, presumptuous and misinterpreted, with very little evidence provided with the allegations. These factors cannot go unnoticed when dealing with something as serious as this.
Obviously a VNC is never a fun thing to have to endure; this has had a serious impact on me personally. All I can ask now is that you vote with your heart and what you believe to be right.
I would finally like to state that if there is anyone who has been adversely affected by me or my campaigning I profusely apologise, it was never my intention to offend or upset anybody in this process and I know sometimes my tactics can be seen as brash. I would be happy to talk to anyone if they feel that is something they would like to do.
Thank you very much.
Appendix 1
“We the undersigned, will if we can be voting against this motion to not VNC Alex Mitchell, or support the against vote as a student of the University.
- Harriet Smailes (Wellbeing Officer elect)
- Dan Schofield (Activities Officer elect)
- Rebecca Lee (Council officer)
- James Watts (Council Officer)
- Ali Douas(Council Officer)
- Kelvin Hall(Council Officer)
- SimranDevgun (Council Officer)
- Aleksandra Jankowiak (Council Officer)
- Cynthia Xin Chang (Council Officer)
- Alexandra Innes
- Oliver Jarvest
- Tom Stevens
- William Simpson
- Zoe Heslop
- Amy Becker
- Heidi Thiemann
- Kinga Kolodziej
- Joe Howell