THE University of Aberdeen is at the centre of an "abuse of power" row as it ratified a decision to scrap the Rector election over allegations of "dirty tricks" by the campaign for Maggie Chapman, the co-convenor of the Scottish Greens.
It comes despite a leaked document revealing that the elections committee indicated that the decision was against the "interests of fairness and natural justice" because Ms Chapman's team had no right of reply.
Support for the elections committee decision to ditch the vote came at the university's Senate on Wednesday which decided that "due process was followed".
But the decision was condemned by Ms Chapman, the current Rector who accused management of "abusing power and preventing good governance" and believed that the university's Court still had the ability to reverse this "stupid decision".
Ms Chapman said: "So, the university is accepting that a gross breach of natural justice is not worth re-examining. That is astonishing.
"Farce doesn't even begin to describe it. It is clear that the university management neither understands proper governance, nor cares that they don't.
"This has, as far as I am concerned, turned into something much bigger than one vote: it is about management abusing power and preventing good governance."
The decision was made despite a call by the student body for the re-vote to be rescinded saying the decision to scrap the election was "undemocratic" and for the results to be declared.
A re-vote was called for after at least one other candidate wanted Ms Chapman, the current Rector, removed from the ballot in a row over hundreds of campaign posters being torn down.
There were complaints a smaller number of posters were also removed by other candidates but it was claimed Ms Chapman's campaign was the worst offender.
The Senate decision means the results of the original election will not be released, and a new vote will be taken in the New Year.
Ms Chapman said motions from senators calling for the release of the results were not allowed to be taken.
And she said that one of the members of the elections committee actually said the words: "a gross breach of natural justice" occurred, but "we are where we are".
A leaked appeal decision revealed that the committee had "concluded unanimously that, in the interests of fairness and natural justice, before making his decision the returning officer should have given the Chapman team the opportunity to respond to the [allegations over posters removal] which the returning officer himself has acknowledged focussed primarily on the conduct of the Chapman team.
"It was quite possible that the Chapman team may have been able to rebut all or some of the allegations made or may have been able to provide additional information that would have influenced his decision."
The university's elections committee also agreed that it was "undoubtedly true" that "many, if not all, of the allegations could not be substantiated."
Antonio Grimaldi, one of a select group of students who protested outside the Senate, agreed that "there is indeed an abuse of power".
He said: "This decision goes on to show how the senior management disregards students in our university, prioritising their own agenda and bending democracy in their favour."
The university said: “Following a full and detailed discussion, the Senate voted to endorse the election committee’s decision to annul the recent Rectorial election. Senate concluded that due process had been followed by the election committee.
“It is disappointing to learn that Ms Chapman seems unable to accept the Senate’s decision. A democratic process has been followed and the university refutes in the strongest terms the allegation that there has been an abuse of power or that good governance has not been followed. Plans for a new Rectorial election will be presented to Senate in January.“
Ms Chapman's opponents in the election were Andrew Bowie, the MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, student Angus Hepburn, from Kippen, near Stirling and the singer, broadcaster and producer Fiona Kennedy.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel