At this year’s fourth Comhairle, taking place on January 27th, 2026, a procedural motion of Censure was brought before the Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU/AMLCT) against the Office of the Editor of the University Times (UT). This procedural motion was called for after a report was presented to the Union by the Chair of the Oversight Commission (OC), Aaron Groome, highlighting constitutional obligations of the UT Editor that had been breached.
When Groome presented a report on the Editor of the University Times, he listed the constitutional obligations of the Editor, including publishing a newspaper once per month, presenting a budget to the Union Forum (UF), and submitting reports to Comhairle (an obligation established by referendum in 2025). Groome mentioned that the University Times’ print budget, accepted in September 2025, was breached twice (€486 on print costs and €18.58 on Doodle Premium), noting that if the newspaper continues to go over budget, it might not have enough money to fulfil the constitutional obligation to publish a print newspaper at least once a month. Furthermore, Groome noted that the University Times Editor had submitted his report late to two of the last three Comhairles to date. Thus, the OC recommended a motion of censure be brought against the Editor of the University Times for failing to fulfil his constitutional obligations. This recommendation was “not made lightly”, according to Groome. Censure is the strongest reprimand (before impeachment) that the Comhairle can give, and it does not necessarily have any procedural consequences.
Following his report, Harper Alderson, Deputy Editor of the University Times, posed a question about the late reports, as well as the constitutional interpretation of the budget obligations, to which Groome answered, “My understanding is, if you have a budget, it’s supposed to be adhered to”. Article 10.1 (d) of the constitution reads “The Editor of the University Times must present a detailed and fully costed budget to the Union Forum at its first meeting of the academic year. (i) This budget can be accepted or rejected, but not altered by the Union Forum”. Alderson noted that several other sabbatical officers have historically submitted late reports, and asked whether they had faced censure or impeachment, to which Groome replied, “You know better than me”.
Alderson then spoke on the discussion item, and raised the example of last year’s censure of previous SU President, Jenny Maguire, and previous Welfare and Equality Officer Hamza Bana, following a situation “with so much more gravity” — the controversial effigies campaign — that an emergency Comhairle had to be called. Alderson stated that, taking into consideration that the censure was heavily debated, and that multiple Officers continuously deliver their reports late, “this seems very out of nowhere”. Alderson answered a question regarding plans around the budget, stating that to cover this overspending, the Editor suggested using part of the advertising income; however, there had been a fundamental misunderstanding regarding this advertising income.
A procedural motion for censure was then officially raised by Mary Groome, on the grounds that “two out of three of his duties aren’t being upheld”. Groome also stated that if there was a problem with the budget, it should have been brought forward earlier. The current Editor of UT spoke against the motion, apologising for the late reports and stating that while he “did explain to the OC why they were late, the OC has claimed that they do not know what needs to be contained in these reports”, stating that (Aaron) Groome had known and acknowledged that the reports were going to be late in advance. He also stated that he did not go over budget, but reallocated it “on a need-basis”, stating, “I have almost five grand to continue to print the newspaper for the rest of the year. […] I don’t see why censure is necessary. I have proven I can execute my position”.
Aaron Groome spoke for the motion, while Alderson spoke against it, restating her arguments and calling on the Comhairle to protect the power and the meaning of censure: “Don’t waste the power of censure on something as trivial as this”. She also noted that the message this censure would send would be a censure of UT.
A motion to sum up and vote was then raised and passed. The votes were tallied, and the procedural motion for censure failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority and did not go forward.
The University Times offered the following statement to this article following the failed censure:
“It is evident from both testimony from union representatives and the OC’s own report that there are no constitutional guidelines on how a UT budget is interpreted or enforced. The OC choosing to claim that mandates were failed or the constitution was violated in regards to the budget is misleading at best and completely fabricated at worst. The original approved budget, approved by Union Forum, proves that almost 4500 euro remains for the printing of the newspaper, more than enough to do so with the same quality and quantity as our organisation has done this entire year. The desire of the OC to censure due to budgetary issues is therefore speculative, and to present it as a failed mandate is simply false. The OC acknowledges that a newspaper has come out once a month, as per Union regulations, this will continue throughout the academic year.
In regards to late reports, the OC also acknowledges that it has not outlined nor does it even understand the foundations of what they would like a UT Editor report to look like. For the sake of providing an adequate report similar to the ones provided by Union sabbatical officers, it was decided that certain reports should be turned in late to wait for adequate information. This was made clear to the OC. Further, it is necessary to note that there has never been a motion of censure brought against any officer in the Union’s history due to late reports, despite there being over a dozen incidents in the last 2 years alone.
Finally, it is important to note that this is the first year that such reports and such budgetary oversight has been implemented, due to the recent UT-related referendum. If there is indeed procedural or constitutional confusion about these new regulations, it is entirely up to the voting members of the Union, including the OC, to solve this.”
