LawSoc Auditor for next year?

hullaballoo

TheVan wrote:

Yeah 'Loo, I would vote for you!

What a rhyme!

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

Not likely, I don't even have the time to do the stuff that needs doing this year! Nah, to do it properly you'd have to not be doing finals and to have loads of spare time.

The_Minister

Sangre wrote:

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

Ouch. What I mean is that all it would take (this would be harder in a big society but not impossible) would be one very carismatic person to waft in and run. Lets face it most Law soc people don't know who is who they'll vote on a whim. The existing rules prevent this. Its not likely but it is concievable and so must be measured.

panda100

hullaballoo wrote:

Not likely, I don't even have the time to do the stuff that needs doing this year! Nah, to do it properly you'd have to not be doing finals and to have loads of spare time.

Well you've come to the right place,boards!:)

Zephead

this is the updated one. now that Mulrooney is aloowed to run and the election is now only a week away.

AngelofFire

g`wan richie

MaxBax

Go Barry Go (congrats to barry if he's reading)

Blush_01

*Bump*

Maybe Peachy could link this one to the new one set up by Zephead?

As for the Mulrooney thing... He arrived late last tuesday to the EGM. I was late, he arrived after me. That's not the most amazing level of commitment, is it? His excuse? An essay. We all do essays/projects/assignments. That's not an excuse, it's B.S. The amendment was passed. Unfortunately, it is retrospective, not retroactive, so he can run. It's a good idea for the committee members to be recognised as society members, but that doesn't eliminate the need for them to actually sign up at some stage throughout the year!

Now I'm sure Richard's probably a great guy with many, many fine qualities. But perhaps he'd be better off running for LawSoc Ents or Publicity officer, or whatever the equivalent is. Personally from the few times I've ever spoken to him or seen him speak (let's try to forget that comedy debate in first year... ouch!) he doesn't appear to have the diplomacy or leadership qualities necessary in the Auditor of such a big society. You can get away with being a crap auditor if your society is small - it's not advisable, but the team as a whole can carry it's weakest members faults if they're made up for by otehr types of action. In something like LawSoc, a pretty major society with a reputation to uphold and a large budget to manage each year, it's not as easy. The people involved in the committee have to carry out their specific duties. It's imperitive that they work well together as a team, but also that they can carry out their required elements of society work themselves. I simply think that there are better candidates for the Auditorship than Richard.

Chinafoot

Relevant posts from new thread merged with this thread. Subject edited.

Diorraing

Richard Mulrooney without question. While I think all 3 candidates would make fine auditors I think Mulrooney's ideas will vastly imrove the society. Lets face it, at the moment the Law Soc is just a crappier version of the L&H with a few ents nights and a few special guests. Mulrooney wants more emphasis placed on the Law side of things: More Moot courts (and not just law students to be involved), sending teams to the international Moot Court competitions and establishing links with the Law Socs in other universities. His ents also sound class and he intends to keep up Thuillier's good work on the debating front.
Don't know much about what the other candidates intend to do, but I'd imagine the society would continue to be a lesser L&H under their guidance

elmyra

I think it's not such a good idea to say that you think Mulrooney would be the best auditor if you don't know what the other two candidates intent to do in the position, grab a manifesto! I'm sure he is a great guy but having been to both EGM's I'm of the opinion that support is split, with friends from Law on Mulrooney's side and LawSoc members who are debaters or members who aren't in the Law faculty siding with Tracey or Hickey. While I respect that LawSoc is chiefly a concern of Law students, I believe both of the other candidates recognise this and there has always been a Law faculty rep on the LawSoc committee, there is no inherent need for LawSoc's auditor to be a Law student.
It's not really fair to say that LawSoc is currently just a less good version of the L&H, LawSoc had a greater membership than the L&H this year, the largest in UCD as far as I'm aware, their teams do very well at debating intervarsities and they've had great guests.
While I wouldn't worry about Law being taken care of under an auditor from Arts (as Tracey and Hickey are), I would worry about debate etc. being taken care of under an auditor from Law, and the fact is debate and events and all that jazz is what LawSoc is very involved with, and it's what gets it the massive membership, and it's that massive membership that dictates the value of the grant the society receives from UCD, allowing LawSoc to run all the events it does. Therefor, if LawSoc becomes a society that becomes more restricted within its mother faculty, which I would worry that it would under Mulrooney, I wouldn't be surprised if membership dropped and took a chunk of that grant along with it. I do know that Thuillier's predecessor, Caroline O'Gorman, is a Law student, but that was probably different in that she was involved in debate and had the support of debaters who were more than willing to serve on her committee and keep a more rounded society. Since Mulrooney doesn't exactly seem to have the debater vote, I don't see that happening under him, he does seem like a nice guy (he seconded Barry Hickey's nomination for auditor) but he's not a speaker...and while I've only seen him speak twice, that sentiment has already been expressed in this thread so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks it. At one of the EGM's he attempted to make a point of information and had to be told that you weren't allowed to make a point of information at an EGM (something written in the LawSoc constitution, ironically), and while it's fair enough to say that people and members in general might not know this, I didn't, an auditorial candidate really ought to.
On a sentimental note, I just don't think LawSoc would be the same without an auditor who maintains involvement in debate, and I think that irrespective of whether Richard wants to do this as he says, it would be difficult for him. College debates happen because student speakers, chiefly those who are on committees, are willing to get up and speak and because debate convenors who know how a house debate or a comedy debate etc works, but time into organising it. Richard's committee, were he to be elected, would most likely be made up of friends from Law who aren't necessarily speakers, and those people who are speakers are siding with Tracey and Hickey, so even if he wants to keep up debating, I fail to see who's going to speak.
I support the amendment that was made to the constitution, but I voted against it because I knew that it was to work retrospectively and I felt it was a bad thing that Richard be allowed to run this year- I know he made a genuine mistake in not joining- but unfortunately that's given him some limelight which the other candidates didn't have, and as they say all publicity is good publicity. He'll also probably get the sympathy vote from people who aren't involved in the society but are members, and think he has been somehow wronged by LawSoc, and finally, it's prevented people who didn't agree with the first amendment or indeed any amendment at all from getting behind him as a candidate and has seriously restricted the pool he has to choose any potential committee from. I support Richard's amendment, but not his running for auditor this year, it's unfortunate but given everything that's happened people wont be voting on manifestos and whether or not Mulrooney is the best candidate, but on whether on not they feel Mulrooney was wronged by LawSoc.

Zephead

Sean Tracey all the way. Richards ideas are too focused on Roebuck. At least with Sean you have a huge focus on the law school while at the same time continuing the success in all other aspects of the society. Plus Sean is a real debater, so he'll be able to contine the good work john has done properly.

And no, he won't just continue the society as an L&H mark 2. Anyone who knows Sean, or has talked to him about the election knows he wants to move away from being the L7H's bitch.

Blush_01

Sean's always been a concise and driven person in the time I've known him. I doubt he'd stand for playing second fiddle to the L&H.

Diorraing

elmyra wrote:

I support the amendment that was made to the constitution, but I voted against it because I knew that it was to work retrospectively and I felt it was a bad thing that Richard be allowed to run this year.

Oh, so you would hand pic who is to run and were they not in the "debaters" clique you wouldn't let them run. Nonsense. Its up to the members of the society who auditor should be and it is in the best interests of the society that there be more candidates to choose from.

It's prevented people who didn't agree with the first amendment or indeed any amendment at all from getting behind him as a candidate and has seriously restricted the pool he has to choose any potential committee from

Not true. Just because they didn't back him as a candidate doesn't mean he won't have them on his commitee.

Since Mulrooney doesn't exactly seem to have the debater vote, I don't see that happening under him, he does seem like a nice guy (he seconded Barry Hickey's nomination for auditor) but he's not a speaker...and while I've only seen him speak twice, that sentiment has already been expressed in this thread so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks it

So what do you mean? If you're not a great public speaker you shouldn't be allowed run for auditor. What if you've got a genuine interest in Law (Moot Courts and all that) but aren't a good debater. I go to many Law Soc debates but can't speak publicly. I still know how debates work and in fairness the auditor doesn't really have to do much - debates conveners etc. do most of the work. I don't like the message being sent out here that you have to be a good debater to do well in Law Soc. It restricts the number of people who are active in the society

Diorraing

Blush_01 wrote:

Sean's always been a concise and driven person in the time I've known him. I doubt he'd stand for playing second fiddle to the L&H.

Hopefully. I have a lot of time for Sean Tracey and think he'd make a fine auditor aswell. I just think that Richie's ideas are more "Law-based", I'm not against Arts students and if they were as focused on the legal side of things as Richie I'd support them. I thought Caroline would place more emphasis on Law last year but was disappointed.
Whoever the hell gets it this year I hope they will do more for people with an interest in Law (like they're supposed to)

Blush_01

Supposed to? Surely an ability to speak is pretty important in legal work? Regardless of what you're dealing with, you're going to have to put your case across succinctly. If you don't you lose the interest of your audience - be that in a debate, in a court case, in a lecture address, in an argument, in a meeting with clients... you see where I'm going, right? Besides, your comment about the Auditor not doing much - if that was the case, why does it necessitate a year out? I get the feeling that you don't really know what's involved in the inner workings of a society, and I doubt that's true.

Did you know that the majority of people doing my course go into Law afterwards? And a fair portion of law students go into journalism etcetera - something people would expect more of Arts students. So an interest in law is reserved solely for those studying the subject? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

elmyra

Diorraing wrote:

Oh, so you would hand pic who is to run and were they not in the "debaters" clique you wouldn't let them run. Nonsense. Its up to the members of the society who auditor should be and it is in the best interests of the society that there be more candidates to choose from.

Not true. Just because they didn't back him as a candidate doesn't mean he won't have them on his commitee.


So what do you mean? If you're not a great public speaker you shouldn't be allowed run for auditor. What if you've got a genuine interest in Law (Moot Courts and all that) but aren't a good debater. I go to many Law Soc debates but can't speak publicly. I still know how debates work and in fairness the auditor doesn't really have to do much - debates conveners etc. do most of the work. I don't like the message being sent out here that you have to be a good debater to do well in Law Soc. It restricts the number of people who are active in the society

I wholeheartedly agree that the bigger the pool of candidates, the better for the society- the only reason I voted against was because the amendment worked retrospectively, I just thought it was unfair that he'd got so much publicity, intentional or not, that the other candidates didn't have. It was a good amendment.

I'm not saying Richard wouldn't have them on his committee, I'm saying chances are it wont happen because if they didn't support him as a candidate they probably don't want to be on his committee. Sad fact.

Finally, of course you don't have to be a good debater to be a good auditor- LawSoc isn't just about debate, I know that, but usually if the auditor isn't an especially involved debater, members of the committee are and this keeps things even. If the entire committee are non-debaters, the society may sadly lose something that is a huge element of what it does and what it's about.

Diorraing

elmyra wrote:

Finally, of course you don't have to be a good debater to be a good auditor- LawSoc isn't just about debate, I know that, but usually if the auditor isn't an especially involved debater, members of the committee are and this keeps things even. If the entire committee are non-debaters, the society may sadly lose something that is a huge element of what it does and what it's about.

But you are assuming that his committee will be full of non-debaters. I don't think that will be the case. I was at the first EGM and the woman (mary I think) said that she really respected Richie and everyone was full of praise for him (debaters included). I do also think that Richie is quite an involved debater: I saw him speak at 4 of the 6 debates I went to. Even if he didn't speak at them it is enough that he attended them (it shows he has the interest). He has one of those red hoodies so I presume he helped out at the world debating championships aswell. OK, he may not be a spectacular debater but he has an interest and no-one can deny that.

I'm not saying Richard wouldn't have them on his committee, I'm saying chances are it wont happen because if they didn't support him as a candidate they probably don't want to be on his commitee. Sad fact.

You can hardly blame Richie if other people are too petty to be on his commitee. Personally I don't think they'll hold it against him and if they do decline to be on the commitee because of what the majority of members wanted then they shouldn't be in the society. But, again, I doubt that they will decline to be on the commitee if they are loyal to the society

I wholeheartedly agree that the bigger the pool of candidates, the better for the society- the only reason I voted against was because the amendment worked retrospectively, I just thought it was unfair that he'd got so much publicity, intentional or not, that the other candidates didn't have. It was a good amendment.

I assume we are talking about the second amendment as the first one was complete sh*te. It was a good amendment and I think the reasons you opposed it are insubstantial. OK, Richie may have got more support from it but its not his fault. The other option was far worse: Not letting him run. Isn't Law Soc's motto: Ar son na córa or something like that which means for the sake of justice. It would be completely unjust for someone who has done as much for the commitee as Richie has not to be allowed run

planck2

if the guy hasn't spoken at any debates or met any of the criteria that is usually required to be met by a person running for auditor then he/she should not be let run.

Economaniac!

Sean for president. He's adorable.

Chakar

The fact of the matter is that Richard Mulrooney has the support of a lot of people such as the numerous Law Soc members and the support of the Students Union Class Reps in which theres out of 81, 50 would actively support Mulrooney as an auditor. The publicity in the College Tribune and the University Observer has done nothing but raise the profile of Mulrooney in UCD and with the extra publicity and name and face recognition I predict Richard Mulrooney will be the Auditor of The Law Society of University College Dublin.

Economaniac!

Chakar wrote:

I predict Richard Mulrooney will be the Auditor of The Law Society of University College Dublin.

That was awfully formal. Thanks for your insight but any monkey could have just derived that result from the little poll happening up there sumwhere ^^^

Chinafoot

Economaniac! wrote:

That was awfully formal. Thanks for your insight but any monkey could have just derived that result from the little poll happening up there sumwhere ^^^

Eh, from my reading of that post Chakar backed up why s/he came to that conculsion and it wasn't because of our "little poll".

panda100

Chakar wrote:

The fact of the matter is that Richard Mulrooney has the support of a lot of people such as the numerous Law Soc members and the support of the Students Union Class Reps in which theres out of 81, 50 would actively support Mulrooney as an auditor. The publicity in the College Tribune and the University Observer has done nothing but raise the profile of Mulrooney in UCD and with the extra publicity and name and face recognition I predict Richard Mulrooney will be the Auditor of The Law Society of University College Dublin.

Have to admit I do agree with you here.Mulrooney has a huge profile around campus now.When I was walking up the stairs to the library today the only law soc election poster that caught my eye was mulrooneys'get rich or die trying' poster.
Who actually votes in these elections?
Mulrooney may just win because he has A LOT of class rep support etc.I just dont think its fair anymore the way in UCD elections its popularity and not personalities that win elections-sometimes this is for the best but often its not the best person for the job that wins.

TheVan

Eh Panda did you not notice the massive, colour Barry Hickey posters??

I would strongly urge people to vote for Barry Hickey for auditor. In my opinion Mulrooney would ruin the LawSoc.

Stabshauptmann

elmyra wrote:

It's not really fair to say that LawSoc is currently just a less good version of the L&H, LawSoc had a greater membership than the L&H this year, the largest in UCD as far as I'm aware

L&H is the largest with C&E a close second. Qsoc, lawsoc and B&L are all pretty close in terms of membership

Stabshauptmann

panda100 wrote:

I just dont think its fair anymore the way in UCD elections its popularity and not personalities that win elections-sometimes this is for the best but often its not the best person for the job that wins.

Personality is the main part of popularity.
I think it unhealthy that either of the above are valued more than ability, suitability or manifestos

elmyra

Diorraing wrote:

But you are assuming that his committee will be full of non-debaters. I don't think that will be the case. I was at the first EGM and the woman (mary I think) said that she really respected Richie and everyone was full of praise for him (debaters included). I do also think that Richie is quite an involved debater: I saw him speak at 4 of the 6 debates I went to. Even if he didn't speak at them it is enough that he attended them (it shows he has the interest). He has one of those red hoodies so I presume he helped out at the world debating championships aswell. OK, he may not be a spectacular debater but he has an interest and no-one can deny that.

You can hardly blame Richie if other people are too petty to be on his commitee. Personally I don't think they'll hold it against him and if they do decline to be on the commitee because of what the majority of members wanted then they shouldn't be in the society. But, again, I doubt that they will decline to be on the commitee if they are loyal to the society


I assume we are talking about the second amendment as the first one was complete sh*te. It was a good amendment and I think the reasons you opposed it are insubstantial. OK, Richie may have got more support from it but its not his fault. The other option was far worse: Not letting him run. Isn't Law Soc's motto: Ar son na córa or something like that which means for the sake of justice. It would be completely unjust for someone who has done as much for the commitee as Richie has not to be allowed run

The reason I'm assuming his committee will be full of non-debaters is because that's whose on his campaign team. Tracey and Hickey's campaign teams are full of debate types, and you generally reward people who've campaigned for you with committee positions, and not so much the people who voted against you...It's general college/society politics.

Again, I don't have a problem with the amendment itself but nobody can deny that it was a constitutional change to further the aims of an individual, which is never a good precedent to set within any society.

In any case, this is just how I see things, and if he wins then nobody can deny the support he has and we'll just have to hope he keeps LawSoc on the track it's on...I will admit he has the best posters!

Diorraing

I have just read Sean Tracey's manifesto. It has to be the most banal document I have ever seen. Nothing exciting or innovative.
His plans for Roebuck are :
"More High Class-Class Parties in these really expensive clubs". Does he think that we are made of money? Law Socs nights out are expensive enough as it is! Nothing about getting better facilities for students in Law. Why is it that the Law Soc cannot look after its own faculty? Med Soc looks after Medicine, Q Soc looks after commerce etc.
Tracey's proposels for Moot Court aren't good. He didn't suggest tutorials for people who don't know how they work. Nothing about getting all the Law Socs together and having an all-Ireland competition.
Debating-wise he should be solid as he was debates convener and having seen him he is a very good debater. Again for Comedy Debates he doesn't have any plans for tutorials although he does promise more of them.

It looks like the Law Soc will continue as it is under Tracey's guidance. His ideas are solid but not spectacular. The society will continue to neglect Law Students, and debating will be as hard as ever to break into.
Richard Mulrooney's ideas are innovative and will change Law Soc for the better. His ents ideas sound really good (although I'm not really into the ents scene!), his ideas for debates, comedy debates, moot courts are fresh and promise to make the society more inclusive. As a Law student he knows what the students in Law need and that is clear from his manifesto.
As for Barry Hickey, I have yet to read his manifesto and my vote is still there for the taking if his ideas are good enough.
At the moment, however, Richard Mulrooney all the way

TheVan

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

L&H is the largest with C&E a close second. Qsoc, lawsoc and B&L are all pretty close in terms of membership

Quite wrong. LawSoc are the largest society on campus.

Diorraing wrote:

As for Barry Hickey, I have yet to read his manifesto and my vote is still there for the taking if his ideas are good enough.

Hickeys manifesto is doing the rounds now and should please you based on that post.

Also I think that organisationally, there is a lot of work involved in being LawSoc Auditor and while I do not doubt that Mulrooney has the ideas or passion, I do question his organisational ability having worked with him previously. But thats my opinion!

Blush_01

I'll second the question on his organisational abilities. I just have no faith in his leadership qualities.