This month will see students vote to decide whether the Editor of The University Times should become an impeachable position. The editorial board of The University Times will be voting no.
Making the Editor removable is a change that we, as an editorial board, strongly support. It is in every student’s interest to have a democratic, well-run University Times whose leadership is held to high standards and real accountability. In recent years, we have already seen how the position’s unchecked power can amplify leadership issues that cripple the paper. That being said, by treating Editor impeachment the same way as Sabbatical Officers, the proposed amendment to the TCDSU constitution creates a real threat to the paper’s editorial independence, whilst solving very little.
Who should be able to impeach the Editor? According to TCDSU, it seems, the answer is the union itself. Under the proposed amendment, “voting members” of the union (i.e. Sabbatical Officers, Class Reps, Faculty Convenors) would be the ones bringing a motion to impeach — not University Times staff. This could lead to uninformed decisions or, at worst, decisions motivated by vested interests. The writers of the current TCDSU constitution deliberately made the UT Editor unimpeachable to protect editorial independence in case disputes arose between the paper and the union. Just this year, The University Times has published articles criticising the union for harmful campaigns, lack of accountability and ineffective action. The proposed amendment, as it stands, reverses this independence. That TCDSU could choose to put an Editor forward for impeachment as it suits them is a dangerous prospect. Impeachability should be in the hands of those most informed about and affected by the running of the paper — namely, the staff of The University Times — not those who stand to lose or gain by the opinions it publishes.
The union’s oversight would not end there. The proposed amendment also requires the Editor to present reports and be questioned on their work by TCDSU members at every council. That the Editor would not otherwise be allowed to speak in council — except in the moments they are being impeached or censured — adds insult to injury. The University Times Editor should not be bound by the same impeachment proceedings as TCDSU officers because they have neither the same rights nor objectives as them. They should not have to weigh what the paper publishes against the prospect of having to defend themselves and potentially face a motion for impeachment from an aggrieved TCDSU — especially if they are to have no say in proceedings otherwise.
Finally, impeachment could hardly happen even if legitimately put forward. For the Editor to be impeached, a motion would have to be approved in council by a two-thirds majority, then move to a referendum by the whole student body; it would take a minimum of eight weeks from a motion to impeach passing to the election of a new Editor, not to mention the fact that a motion to start a referendum to impeach requires 500 signatures in the first place, a staggering number. Councils also happen infrequently and wrap up by April. This is hardly, then, an efficient or feasible mechanism for removing an Editor that needs to be impeached. Impeachment would take weeks to set in motion and would be almost impossible to initiate after spring — in other words, by the time it becomes clear an Editor should be impeached.
Impeachability as an avenue to counterbalance the Editor’s power is necessary to maintain The University Times’s quality, democracy and accountability. However, more thought needs to be given as to how this can be done effectively and without compromising the editorial independence the original constitution sought to protect. Early discussions with TCDSU, the Electoral Commission and Oversight Commission have yielded several such viable alternatives, in which impeachment could be initiated by University Times staff and decided on by uninvolved third parties rather than the Students’ Union. We are committed to working to enshrine these in the TCDSU constitution and creating a fair and effective impeachment process. As it stands, the upcoming referendum, if passed, would create more problems than it solves.
