LawSoc Auditor for next year?

TheVan

Right, I just came out of the LawSoc EGM about the constitutional changes....

Just wondering what people out there think of the whole situation?

And if you don't know what I'm talking about you've missed out on some of the best entertainment in UCD this year!

My opinion is that

1. He was stupid not to join
2. In a perfect world he shouldnt have to pay for that in such an extreme situation
3. The constitution is there for a reason
4. He broke the rules
5. The ammendment he brought was legally bo*llocks
6. Its a mess started by and lengthened by Mulrooney

He should bring a proper ammendment and then let democracy run its course instead of putting forward legal rubbish.....

But thats my opinion....whats the consensus among Boardsies?

Font22

idiot not to join. why the hell wud he try to round up members for the law soc if he wasnt even arsed to join himself??

Riamfada

Whats this then?

panda100

I think he should definatly be alllowed run.Most of the societys I am active in now I didnt join at the begginig of the year.I didnt join world aid soc or labouryouth cos I wasnt out on campus at the beggining of term.At the end of the day joining law soc just gives you a membership number and a free donought.You shouldnt be allowed run just cos you didnt pay 2 euro at the begginig of the year-its not fair.Mulrooney lived beneath me in belgrove two years ago and he seems decent enough.But the fact is he should be allowed run,definatly

TheVan

I think the feeling in the LawSoc is that everyone would love if he could run.

Thing is there are two problems.

Firstly he didnt fulfill the rules by failing to join up. Now we can say that a blind eye should be turned but a similar situation arose 2 years ago and the person was not allowed run.

Secondly this opens the possibility of changing the rules. The egm was to consider his proposed ammendment. It is perhaps the messiest legal ammendment i have ever seen (in my opinion...im sure some other people think differently, pidgeonbutler i am looking at you!) and so it failed.

I think the general feeling is that if a watertight, good ammendment is proposed people will allow it and he can run....but he persists in making it difficult for himself and everyone else!

A good guy but really.....

Also any B&L or law students missed a legally fascinating meeting!

Sangre

Would have maybe went except I haven't been a lawsoc member in 2 years.

Just let him run I say. Let the members choose their best auditor.
He is a member, so what if he only joined in refreshers week?

Anybody but Barry I say.

randombassist

I think with the particular ammedment he put in, he really shouldn't be allowed to run. A reference to semesters when the rest of the constitution deals in terms just doesn't make any sense at all!

Panda, I can see where you're coming from, but in Richard's particular case, he should have learnt from his last experience at this sort of thing when he resigned from the law society rather than the commitee, it really is his own fault.

panda100

TheVan wrote:

Also any B&L or law students missed a legally fascinating meeting!

I think law and order on network 2 is about all the law jargon i can handle!
I hate all these rules and regulations in societys,there so silly.
Thank god for world aid soc and its flexible rules!do we even have a constitution beanyb?:D

Ah that is really bad form he's not being allowed run.the poor chap.He seems to have given a lot to law over the years and really at the end of the day joining the society really is just a membership card and free ice cream.

beanyb

Yeah we do have a constitution. I think Ciaran wrote one before he stepped down as auditor. I have a vague memory of voting on it anyway. Half of our exec never joined though, i know that's for sure.

But I'm sure as such a small soc and a relatively new one ours is totally different to Lawsoc's proper constitution. It's an unfortunate situation, but if it's in the constitution he cant run.

Have to agree with Sangre though... anybody but Barry. Never heard anything nice said about the guy.

Sangre

You have to have a constitution to become a society.
You probably voted to change the standard format one most use.

TheVan

Thing is, he was told publicly that if he comes back with another amendment that actually makes sense and isnt completely worthless, it will be passed and he can run. He could propose "all committee members are to be considered de facto members of the Law Society".
In fact several people suggested this to him in the last few weeks but he obviously refused to listen? Tis madness i tells ya!

I dont think we should make it a personal thing, fair enough not liking Barry but to be honest if we're gonna judge potential auditors i think Mulrooney would be a disaster, he has no organisational skills and at the last few public meetings he has shown he actually knows very little about how the LawSoc is run.
He's a really nice guy who has a lot to give the society but thats it.

The legal discussion was great tho. Steven Byrne and Seán Quigley made great, clear arguments!

GusherING

I resented the disadin many Law Soc committe memebers held against those of us who don't attend every Law Soc meeting. I felt like I was portrayed as being hired my Richard Mulrooney to back his case. I back his case but thats my prerogative as a member for the last two years, I am not rent-a-crowd. I think Law Soc should learn to repsect its members better in every sense, be it constitutional pedantry or just common courtesy to people in their society that they don't know to see. My opinion is far lower of this society and I wonder will I re-join next year.:mad:

hullaballoo

tintinr35

panda100 wrote:

.Mulrooney lived beneath me in belgrove two years ago and he seems decent enough.But the fact is he should be allowed run,definatly

just cause he lived beneath u in 1st yr doesnt mean he should be allowed run!
most private clubs/societies have rules and regulations!

if u do not abide by them then you cannot participate in them, i red all the leaflets he left around res over the past few nights and despite the fact that he has done alot for the society in the past, he was not a member for the college year and therefore should not be allowed to run! if he was so active in the society in the past he should have made it his business to join in september, dont tell me he wasnt intending running then!!!
take your degree and p1ss off mate tbh.

panda100

So can I not be active in world aid soc because I didnt pay 1euro to join at the beggining of the year??

tintinr35

panda100 wrote:

So can I not be active in world aid soc because I didnt pay 1euro to join at the beggining of the year??

well as u have mentioned several times already u clearly are, maybe the rules are different panda

besty

"Scandal"

panda100

tintinr35 wrote:

well as u have mentioned several times already u clearly are, maybe the rules are different panda

Its just a ridiculous rule though.This will just discourage people from getting involved in societys with petty rules such as that.If he's involved in the commitee and active in the society then he should be allowed run,definatly!!

The_Minister

The rule is there to stop people waltzing in and taking over. The rules must count.
Did he know the rule - yes.

Sangre

Firespinner wrote:

The rule is there to stop people waltzing in and taking over. The rules must count.
Did he know the rule - yes.

Don't be stupid. A majority of the 3000+ members would still have to vote him in.

Just get him to come back with a different amendment. Didn't realise his first one was so atrocious. And after being told to change it by Byrne before hand...tut tut

singingstranger

seemingly it wouldn't work anyway because (I'm told by my murky hack sources) it wouldn't have worked retrospectively and could only work in the future, not the present. Or something.

There's the reason I'm not doing Law...

Blush_01

To be honest, the guy shouldn't be running for Auditor of one of the largest societies in UCD if he didn't even have the decency to fork over €2 in September. Being Auditor isn't something that just strikes you on the bog over christmas, you're either committed or not. He obviously wasn't committed enough, otherwise he'd have done his research and joined in the first semester, be it during Fresher's week or on the last day of term. So Panda, I think your argument that you shouldn't have to join a society to be active is fine, but to run the bloody society it's not. If he wanted to be an OCM, fine, but he wants to manage the entire society. It's hard enough to juggle a small society and college, who the hell is he to be allowed to take a year off to run a society if he can't even get his ass into gear to join it within three months of college starting? If any of my committee hadn't joined in Fresher's week, there'd have been words. And there's only 6 of us. It takes two seconds to join up - he thought he'd get all the perks for nothing and his scabbiness shouldn't be rewarded by him being made auditor, especially as he could have bummed the €2 from any number of people. I don't even know the guy and I'd have given it to him if he'd asked. He might be a nice guy, but he's also a bit of a twit if his inability to join the relevant society he plans on running is anything to go by.

Syth

Small societies really need the protections of a committee. Otherwise on the AGM a guy walks in with 10 of his mates and he can win the election. Some societies (NetSoc and PaganSoc at least) require you to be a committee member the previous year before you can run for auditor.

hullaballoo

Purely incidentally: Would anyone like to be the auditor of Comedy Soc next year? Just asking, pm me if interested.

besty

hullaballoo wrote:

Purely incidentally: Would anyone like to be the auditor of Comedy Soc next year? Just asking, pm me if interested.

You do it Hullaballoo. My organisational skills wouldn't be up to it.

TheVan

Yeah 'Loo, I would vote for you!

What a rhyme!

Auditor of ComedySoc 2006/07.....Hullaballoo!

Economaniac!

Does anybody know the List for the election of Auditor for Lawsoc? I think an informal poll is in order. As far as i know the list is Richard Mulrooney*, Barry Hickey and Sean Tracey. A poll anybody? (we have polls over the most stupid things in this board i think this at least deserves one)

*pending scandal.

TheVan

Economaniac! wrote:

A poll anybody? (we have polls over the most stupid things in this board i think this at least deserves one)

*pending scandal.

It has been done!

panda100

hullaballoo wrote:

Purely incidentally: Would anyone like to be the auditor of Comedy Soc next year? Just asking, pm me if interested.

cool!!yeah I love comedy!dont tell anyone but neil delemare is doing a private intimate gig in Bewleys cafe theatre on tuesday night-cant wait!!

Do I have to do some sort of comedy routine for my interview......
why did the chicken cross the road?

Economaniac!

its BARRY hickey, i'm not him (but i know all three of them) and he should probably have his name spelt right!

TheVan

I know, sorry....was in an extremely tired place when I wrote it!

Anyway from the sounds of it he hasnt much support out there!

ITS BARRY HICKEY!.....SORRY

Anyway i dont think this poll matters too much in the grand scheme though...some people have children you know!