With spectators overflowing onto the stage of the Teviot Debating Hall for the Students’ Representative Council meeting, it came as no surprise that proceedings began last Tuesday evening under the weight of considerable tension. The first motion up for debate would be the censuring of Emma Meehan, following her controversial trip to Israel.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the presence of such a tangible sense of apprehension was the uncertainty about what the actual outcome of the motion to censure would be, if it was to pass. While the actual penalty would have been a mandatory, official apology from Meehan, talk in non-rep circles implied that resignation was expected in the case of a vote of no confidence, a measure which seemed far harsher than its crime warranted.

However substantial the tension in the room may have been, the level of polite conduct, on the whole, was admirable. Proposers of the motion repeatedly reaffirmed that the motion was not a personal attack on Meehan, but was a necessary measure to uphold the democratic ethos of the SRC. As an elected sabbatical officer, the argument held, the council needed to hold her to account, in order to avoid EUSA’s democratic structure being left redundant.

The reasons given in opposition to the motion seemed largely based around the defence of open, informed debate, which, Meehan claims, was the motivation behind her controversial trip. There was further concern about use of the word ‘condemn’ in the motion, which, referencing Meehan’s actions, was considered a possible ‘permanent mark’ on her professional record. With general feeling seeming to be that such a mark would be too harsh a penalty for a sabbatical officer who had, for the most part, served well in her position as VPSA, the motion as a whole fell.

A complaint that seems to be surfacing with increasing frequency is EUSA becoming too internal in its affairs, dealing more with factional squabbles than with the duties its representatives have been elected to deal with.

The, frankly, ridiculous motion submitted for President Matt McPherson to step down as chair for ‘failing to uphold the Safe Space Policy’ was one example of such factional squabbles. McPherson, having allowed three incidents of illegal applause, yet apologising profusely for the mistake afterwards and otherwise facilitating the debate courteously and fairly, was quite rightly granted the right to retain his position as chair. Indeed, the petty act seemed only to reflect negatively on those who proposed it, coming across as clutching at straws at best, and plain sore losing at worst.

As the meeting proceeded onto other matters, with a series of motions proposed by James McAsh, an emphasis on internal affairs and transparency seemed to emerge – an emphasis which would characterise the evening as a whole.

Assuring transparency is, of course, of the utmost importance to any democratic institution. However, the time devoted to it in the Student Council meeting seemed to illustrate the claims that such meetings have deviated from discussing the issues they are designed to address, issues that matter to students, and have become more about the differences of individuals within the council.

There are undoubtedly those who feel that the council’s failure to censure Meehan is indicative of a miscarriage of justice. They needn’t. The motion was brought to the table and discussed at length, with all representatives wishing to speak being given equal opportunity to do so. Having been dealt with in a manner appropriate to the democratic nature of the student council, its eventual falling was, also, a democratic decision.