UCLU Education and Campaigns Officer Michael Chessum’s dual roles as free- dom fighter extraordinaire and Sabbatical Officer have again led to complaints from Union members. These follow the dis- closure of a leaked email from NUS president Aaron Porter claiming that Chessum delib- erately misled him to gain sup- port for the UCL Occupation.
On Sunday 28 Novem- ber the occupation’s blog was proud to report a visit from Porter. During a short speech he voiced his full sup- port for all five demands that were put to him and defended non-violent occupation as a legitimate means of protest.
He also apologised for the ‘spineless dithering’ that had apparently afflicted the NUS thus far. Unfortunately for the NUS, it now seems that this visit could have done with a little more dithering, or at least some basic planning.
An email leaked to The Cheese Grater shows how Por- ter failed to properly check the UCL Union position on the oc- cupation before providing his support, going against NUS policy to only follow individ- ual member unions. The email from Porter is a reply to an individual within UCL Union questioning the support of the NUS for an occupation that has not yet received union back- ing. The response from Porter states that Chessum had told him that the occupation was indeed supported by UCLU.
Porter claimed he would not have entered if he had been properly informed. The email from Porter closes by say- ing: ‘I’m really sorry, I should have had the foresight to have thought I could have been mis- led – but didn’t think I would be by a SU Officer. I have clear- ly learnt an important lesson!’
Porter has since backed down on several of the de- mands agreed: there is no longer public support for all student occupations on the front page of the NUS web- site and he has not since called for a new wave of occupations.
Chessum responded to the email on 30 November and de- nied all wrongdoing, claiming that he had not (in his UCLU capacity at least) spoken to Por- ter on the subject of the UCL oc- cupation until he ‘bumped into’ him outside the occupation itself.
Regardless of whether he spoke to Porter or not, Ches- sum’s parallel role within the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts does breed spec- ulation as to who exactly he is and isn’t speaking for when he gives a statement to the media or when he communicates with other bodies such as the NUS.
Given this ambiguity, if Chessum did talk to Aaron Por- ter inviting or authorising him to speak at the occupation, would it have been unreason- able for the NUS president to expect him to be speaking on behalf of UCL Union and its students, who he is paid over £20,000 per year to represent?
Chessum further under- mined his awkward efforts to juggle his job and his campaign- ing by joining a Facebook group telling students to vote in favour of the motion at the Extraordi- nary General Meeting scheduled for 6 December. He has also been encouraging others vot- ing the same way to arrive early in order to swamp the lecture theatre. Neither of these ac- tions is appropriate behaviour for a Sabbatical Officer who is paid by UCL Union to remain neutral, not merely to push his own policies through the mouth- piece that the Union provides.
Porter’s offence of ad- ministrative neglect however, while not irrelevant, is by no means an adequate explanation for the miserable inconsistency of the NUS, who have now re- verted to their original position of targeting LibDem MPs after Sunday’s more militant episode.
Perhaps if the NUS is to have any hope of maintaining respectability, it needs to stop pretending that all students have the same view on all issues. The purpose of Sunday’s public sup- port for occupations was ap- parently to avoid ‘a civil war within the student movement’. However Porter’s decision to backtrack on his promises has merely incited this further. Giv- en that there is no single policy with total student support, the return to quieter, more impar- tial behaviour on his part may be the best line the NUS can tread.