Constitutions are commonly vague in their content. These documents, so fundamental to the foundation and functioning of a state, more often than not, refrain from setting out every principle that should underlie a society. For example, neutrality is not explicitly set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann (our own constitution), but rather is the legacy of the Emergency during the Second World War. The American Constitution is perhaps the most famous example, containing just seven articles in its original form, adopted by the Founding Fathers. The idea behind this ambiguity is that it leaves room for legislators and judges alike to fill in the blanks. This grants a degree of flexibility to law-making and interpretation which is both pragmatic and reflective of modern day values and attitudes.
That being said, changes to the Constitution (usually conducted via a referendum) require a certain degree of clarity to avoid confusion over the meaning and implications of what is being voted on. This was highlighted in the Family and Care referendums held two years ago, in which confusion over terms such as “durable relationship” contributed to the referendums’ failure. And such now appears to be an issue with the most recent additions to the Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU/AMLCT) constitution, regarding the role and responsibilities of the University Times Editor.
Last October, the student body voted in favour of making changes to the executive role of the newspaper, along with a motion regarding the representation of postgraduate students in the Student Union. 2,112 voted in favour whilst 1,130 voted against, with 1,320 abstaining, the motion thus passed with 56 per cent of votes. The changes it makes are significant, bringing what was once a substantially independent position into the remit of the Union. Along with a pre-existing obligation to submit the paper’s annual budget at the first Comhairle, the Editor must also submit a report at every Comhairle (a duty previously exclusive to the Union’s sabbatical officers). However, the Editor may not speak at Comhairle unless they are requested to do so. Most importantly, the position is now impeachable, and the Editor may be censured. “Censure occurs at counsel and may be brought by any motion to censure followed by deliberation and voting among voting members of Comhairle”, explains Harper Alderson, current Deputy Editor of the University Times and the sole candidate for the paper’s Editor position in this year’s elections. “Impeachment is either that at Comhairle or by a petition of 500 students, and then it goes to referendum.”
The paper’s own stance on the referendum was very much in opposition to the proposals. In an article published just a week before the referendum, the Editorial Board of the University Times argued that whilst the position of Editor should be impeachable, impeachment proceedings should be conducted by the newspapers’ own staff rather than the student body. They also argued it was unfair that the Editor be given limited speaking rights at Comhairle, given that the position now carried the same responsibilities to Comhairle as the Union’s officers. Finally, in a statement after the referendum results were announced, Alderson (who also acted as the manager of the “No” campaign for the vote) argued the electorate were not given the opportunity “to fully understand the implications of the referendum” with regard to both the Student Union’s own popularisation of the motion as well as the actual wording.
And indeed, Alderson correctly foreshadowed what was to come with these reforms. Last month, at the fourth Comhairle of the academic year, a motion of censure was brought by the Union’s Oversight Committee against Charles Hastings, the publication’s current Editor. The Committee argued that Hastings had breached the approved budget twice through overspending on print costs and Doodle Premium, respectively, and had also submitted his report for Comhairle late twice, which breached the newly established Article 10.1 of the Union’s Constitution. However, Hastings explained that the report was submitted late both times due to a lack of clarity on what its contents should contain (which the Oversight Committee itself acknowledged), which had been accepted by the Committee. Furthermore, Hastings remarked that he had not overspent the budget but rather reallocated funds “on a need-basis”. Ultimately, the censure failed, as the requisite two-thirds majority was not met. In an official statement made after the vote, the University Times highlighted the “constitutional confusion” over the interpretation of the paper’s budget as well as the content of the Editor’s reports. The unusually excessive nature of the motion of censure was also noted, which had never been brought against an officer for a late report before.
The motives behind what incentivised the Students’ Union to seek these revisions are somewhat unclear. Indeed, drastic measures have been taken against the paper in the past in response to perceived publishing impropriety. The infamous Knights of the Campanile controversy in 2019, for example, resulted in a referendum that proposed to slash the paper’s funding and remove the Editor’s salary, but ultimately failed to pass. However, these Pravda-esque proposals appear to have been unprompted, with little explanation given for their initiation. The move has arguably removed much of the independence given to the position established in 2014, and has certainly brought the publication closer into the Union’s purview.
That being said, what this now entails is still unclear. Indeed, the new amendment only specifies that the Editor must submit a report without any specification given to its substance. Furthermore, the new changes have highlighted a lack of certainty with regard to the pre-existing functions of the role, as was reflected in the befuddlement over the publication’s budget. If the Union wishes to put the Editor on the stand, they must first be sure their accusations are absolute. Constitutional confusion must be replaced by constitutional clarity, to ensure the role can be carried out certainly and effectively. In other words, to use the terminology of Donald Rumsfeld, these “known unknowns” must become very known soon.
