New Constitution Referendum 12th/13th of April

HappyCrackHead

Hey guess what, they're trying to swing 3 referenda by us hoping we'll be good little robots and vote yes to all.

Well i say SCREW THAT!

Referendum #1 New constitution for the UCDSU.

Anyone who is remotely filled in on the SU will know that we are in DIRE need of a new Constitution. However, i've read the new constitution, you can too if you like here's a link http://www.ucdsu.net/attachments/apr2006/proposed_new_constitution.pdf and this is a link to the old one. but if you don't have the time to sift through the many articles and sub articles let me just inform you of a couple of changes and additions to the constitution you're being asked to vote on.

Before getting into the nitty gritty of the consitutional debate I think you all deserve to be filled in on a few things that have happened. These referenda were announced on the 1st of April. According to article 6.2.iii of the existing (and i might add the proposed constitution) "Such Referendums shall be... not less than two weeks, from the date of their being called." This looks fairly straight forward to me. However Morgan Shelley, UCDSU returning officer (for those of you who arent UCDSU lingo savy this means he's in charge of elections) says that there's nothing wrong with holding the referenda so soon. I can't speak for morgan but it seems to me, a layman, that this referenda is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Many appeals have been made to Morgan regarding this and, no big suprise, he's rejected them.

One other thing, to get a referendum up for a vote one of two things are required. That the referndum be passed in the UCDSU council or that 3.5% of the voting membership of UCDSU sign a petition for it. It is alleged that on Friday 31st of March those in favour of this constitution recieved 900signatures, roughly the number needed, in favour of the proposed constitution. There's a couple of problems with this. These 900 signatures were collected on a FRIDAY OUT OF TERM. I have seen how hard it is to get 30 signatures on a tuesday afternoon in term. All those who have requested to view the signatures to my knowledge have been refused. This smells mighty fishy to me.

Now down to that nitty gritty i mentioned earlier.

Article 4, Subarticle 1 of the existing constitution
" 1. Every Union member is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out in this Article without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, religion, language, sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social, property, birth, academic or other status."

The section in bold has been removed. Now, it might seem odd me pointing the subtraction out but please thing about this for a moment. WHY would someone want to remove the distinctions from the "Fundemental Rights" article. the only reason i've been able to come up with, and i've had about a six days to think about this is to PURPOSEFULLY make the article ambiguous opening up the possibility of discrimination. This is just my opinion but if you can think of a better reason you're welcome to try and fill me in.

The rolls of the Executive officers: Women's officer, Finance, LGBT, Disabilities, Communications and IT, Irish Language and international officer are all being relegated from the EXECUTIVE COUNCIL to the newly created "OFFICERS' FORUM" which is nothing more than a powerless talking shop. (for those of you who think the whole SU is just a powerless talking-shop imagine this Forum as being the embodiment of everything people complain about as regards to the UCDSU) You're being asked to vote for four of these positions this week Women's, Finance, Comm and IT and Irish language. You're being asked to vote for powerless positions if this constitution gets passed.

OK so what's wrong with this rearrangement of theses officers. Well it sends out a message I believe, that the rolls of officers like LGBT, Disabilties and Women's officers SHOULD have no power. That these important positions for preventing discrimination aught to be relegated to powerless roles. now... put this together with the changes to Article 4.2.

Are you starting to see the pattern?

You should be.

Article 18.9
"If the Union President, acting in accordance with the powers conferred in Rule 11(3), undertakes disciplinary action against any sabbatical or non-sabbatical officer of the Union..."

WELL, this is new! The president of the SU can dicipline any sabbatical or non sabatical officer of the union under "Rule 11(3)". I invite you to Find rule 11.3, you could be looking for a while. Cause it doesnt exist. This funny little insert is in the section about appealing diciplinary action. When questioned about this article those proposing the new constitution said that they realised the problem with this part and were going to alter it. First they said they were removing it all together, then they said they wouldnt, about 30minutes later.

I've got two problems with this. #1 are they going to invent this Rule 11(3)? Giving the president powers to dicipline other officers. Dont let the title fool you, the president isnt anyone's boss. This is a union, the closest thing he might be is kinda like "first among equals" but even then thats being generous. The only people who can dicipline ANYONE right now is the Independent Appeals Board (IAB).

Problem #2 They're altering a document that 900 people signed and agreed to. These 900 (if they're actually valid, and considering the amount of secrecy, hush hush and rushed nature of this referendum i sincerely doubt it) signatures are not valid for this adjusted referendum. But once again Morgan "I Am The Law" Shelley deems it all perfectly constitutional.

One reason Morgan might be pushing so hard for all this is because... and get this, this is the icing on the cake, he might have some small role in having drafted this joke of a constitution.

Look there is more and yes it gets worse...

These same people are pushing for the rebranding of Women's officer, now i know, the women's officer becoming gender equality officer is a contentious issue and i'd rather this thread not end up like the women's officer thread did.

But you have to question these things... Dont just mark yes with an X because its easy. You all have a voice and these people will take that voice away if you don't stop them here and now.

And if you havent bothered to read any of what i've typed up here then I suggest one last thing

DON'T KNOW? VOTE NO!

Thank you for your time

Kevin Doyle 2nd Arts UCD

HappyCrackHead

I'm voting for

Apparently sections of the print media have been informed about all this.

Should be funny.

elmyra

I'm voting for

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Hey guess what, they're trying to swing 3 referenda by us hoping we'll be good little robots and vote yes to all.

Well i say SCREW THAT!

]

I pretty much agree with you with regards to the New Constitution, but I just wanted to mention that it is possible to confuse the issue by grouping the three referenda together above. It is possible to want to vote no to the new constitution but yes to the new su fees levy for the new student centre (like me!).

Now that you know the facts on the New Constitution I'd encourage people to get to know what way they want to vote on the student centre. I'm pretty sure there was a thread on it but I can't find it and it kinda slots in here so just a few things before we get a big no vote across the board...

The reason behind the new student centre is that it would be student run and as such give preference to students. This is necessary because despite all the chat about the other facilities around campus, it's getting harder and harder for clubs and socs to access them- this year Dance Soc got kicked out of the sports centre cos they needed the space, Law Soc were refused a room to hold their AGM in the Arts Block, ditto to Jazz Soc.

As for us having to pay for it...if you're in 3rd year, you wont obv cos you'll be gone. If you a 1st year in a four year course or three years with a year abroad or a year out (or a fail ) you'll be around to see it open and room usage for socs is planned to be free with pool charges etc to be nominal, it'll be run at cost not to make a profit. People who wont be around for it as students will still get reduced fees to use the facilities as grads if they so wish. Also (I'm open to correction on this) I think the fees will be stepped up gradually and not just doubled for the next academic year, so the big increase (which isn't that big anyway) will be in the year that the centre opens and therefor, be paid by those who are going to get to use it.

Also, I know people weren't happy with the idea that it was all planned with no input from them, but it isn't. The reason they didn't get an architect yet incidentally is because they didn't want to shell out 150 grand on something students might give a no to in the referendum and you can still make suggestions.

I'm really not an authority on this and I'm not an SU flunky, I just have a bit of an interest cos I'm on a society committee. Give it a yes, if you're strongly against it for other reasons, give it a no...it wont matter if it wins on the yes vote if 10% of people don't turn out it can't go ahead anyway, so please vote if you want the new student centre...but if you happen to be voting no please be in the minority, cheers

anonymous_joe

Don't we already have a Student Centre?

HappyCrackHead

I'm voting for

anonymous_joe wrote:

Don't we already have a Student Centre?

yeah but this is STUDENT CENTRE EXTREME!!!

we, the students are being asked to pay for it. the fee will be tagged onto the registration fee going up incrimentally over a few years until it reaches €150. the thing is with how long it'll take to build it, one could do a medicine degree, pay the 150 for the SCX each year, and never reap the benefits.

Those proposing the SCX havent even gone to the university seeking funding.

The whole thing is a joke, like the other 2 referenda.

Red Alert

I'm voting for

Why are we paying already for a student centre that the SU seem not to use. The astra hall is a money spinner for the college.

I think the SCX or whatever name some idiot marketing guru came up with is an utterly pointless idea. There are plenty of rooms in college. I've never had any hassle getting any rooms for stuff - they should do their homework and get a room for a date before publicising an event.

We do not need a theatre nor cinema. There's a super cinema-grade sound/video system over in the UIC behind eng. A similar installation in somewhere like Theatre L or P would be a much better idea, for much less money. We already have LG1 which does look cool - i think the very essence of a basement theatre would be lost in a bland new building. As for a debating chamber, no way.

Why doesn't someone address why Commerce is allowed to withold its rooms in the Quinn School from use by societies? I think services shouldn't give any commerce-related societies like C&E or QSoc rooms elsewhere like in arts or eng and then that would put the ball in the court of the commerce faculty.

Chinafoot

I'm voting for

Kudos kev. I'm going to sticky this one until after the voting. Its important for people to see it.

elmyra

I'm voting for

As regards when it'll be open...2008. If the referendum is passed they're getting to work on it straight away.

The whole thing about socs and clubs being able to utilise the facilities already on campus just isn't happening, academic events and classes have preference over socs in UCD, which is the way it should be, but as they increase there is less and less room for soc events even in the evening. When there is room, they're often still refused...Jazz Soc and Law Soc as far as I know were refused because arts services didn't have enough staff on?!

As for looking for the university to fund it....that would mean that they would control it, which would make it the same as any other building, which would null the point of building it in the first place. DCU have the Helix and it's farmed out for business and commercial use so the college can make money off it, the same would happen here.

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

I really would urge you all to vote no on the two constitutional referenda. The new constitution is an absolute mess.

Just a few things to add to HappyCrackHeads summary:

This is the proposed new composition of the Union Executive
The Union Executive shall consist of:
(a) The Union President
(b) The Campaigns and Communications Vice-President
(c) The Welfare Vice-President
(d) The Education Vice-President
(e) The Entertainments Vice-President
(f) The Programme Officers
(g) The Postgraduate Students' Officer
(h) The Union Secretary (non-voting) (articles 13.2 New constitution)

Exec currently meets once a week to
"take such interim decisions as may become necessary between meetings of Union Council, subject to their ratification (or otherwise) by the Union Council." – Article 9.1 of the old constitution

Worryingly the new constitution no longer makes provisions for what decisions Exec shall be empowered to make. Save for this:
"The Union Executive shall have a quorum of one half of all voting members plus one. The Union Executive shall make standing orders for the conduct of meetings and of the affairs of the Union Executive." Article 13.1 xi, new constitution
This seems to (and the seeems to is doubly worring, the constitution should above all things be clear and precice) mean that it's up to exec how much power they have. This means exec's decisions no longer have to be ratified by council. This is too much power for exec, particularly since…

The following members of exec have been removed:
finance officer
Irish language officer
Women's officer
Comms and it
LGB officer (non voting)
Disability rights officer (non voting)
And int. students officer (non voting)
Plus any two other non-voting members nominated by council (this year we had an environmental and outlying faculties officer)


So we'll have an exec with potentionally more power, and no minority voices... which is ironic consider it's the same people who are trying to sell you a 'gender equality' officer in the name of making things more equal.

Do not be fooled, this constitution is not about equality.
Vote it down folks.

singingstranger

What New Constitution?

HappyCrackHead wrote:

It is alleged that on Friday 31st of March those in favour of this constitution recieved 900signatures, roughly the number needed, in favour of the proposed constitution. There's a couple of problems with this. These 900 signatures were collected on a FRIDAY OUT OF TERM. I have seen how hard it is to get 30 signatures on a tuesday afternoon in term. All those who have requested to view the signatures to my knowledge have been refused. This smells mighty fishy to me.

In fairness, it only took James and Peter (and possibly Shaun) a few hours in the library. We all know how packed the main Joyce Library was for all of the break. When I signed it in the late afternoon I got a look at the other signatures and there were hundreds already, so I'd personally reject any notion that signatures were fabricated out of nowhere.

panda100

What New Constitution?

singingstranger wrote:

In fairness, it only took James and Peter (and possibly Shaun) a few hours in the library. We all know how packed the main Joyce Library was for all of the break. When I signed it in the late afternoon I got a look at the other signatures and there were hundreds already, so I'd personally reject any notion that signatures were fabricated out of nowhere.

Yep i agree-this is a very biased sticky thread with a lot of insinuations.Dont you think it would be fairer to sticky the proposed new constitutional admendments so students can make up their own minds instead of Kev making it up for us.I like to hear two side to every story.......

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

panda100 wrote:

Yep i agree-this is a very biased sticky thread with a lot of insinuations.Dont you think it would be fairer to sticky the proposed new constitutional admendments so students can make up their own minds instead of Kev making it up for us.I like to hear two side to every story.......

So read the constitution yourself and make up you mind!

panda100

What New Constitution?

pretty*monster wrote:

So read the constitution yourself and make up you mind!

But I just think in order for something to be stickied it shouldnt be so biased. The first post should be the constitutinal admentments before kevs rant

singingstranger

What New Constitution?

panda100 wrote:

But I just think in order for something to be stickied it shouldnt be so biased. The first post should be the constitutinal admentments before kevs rant

I'm inclined to agree, tbh. Would a thread with the OP "reasons you shouldn't vote Órla Ní Threasaigh" be stickied?

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

There are people with explicit things to gain from getting an individual elected. Those of us opposed to the constitutional referenda are doing it solely out in the best interestes of the union (that sounds totally ghey, but to be fair, we're totally fecking ourselves over exam wise to campaign on this so late in the year).

We're totally off topic anyway. Debate the constitution. Please.

come on lads, what do you think of more power being vested in the president?
What do you think of booting minorities off Exec?
Lets get a debate going.

panda100

What New Constitution?

singingstranger wrote:

I'm inclined to agree, tbh. Would a thread with the OP "reasons you shouldn't vote Órla Ní Threasaigh" be stickied?

Exactly.I still think its a good idea to sticky it peachy but maybe kevs post could come second and you could post up a link first to the new constitutinal amendments first

singingstranger

What New Constitution?

pretty*monster wrote:

come on lads

Ooh, return of the gender equality issues...

pretty*monster wrote:

what do you think of more power being vested in the president?

What harm? Anyone worried about a rogue president running away with the Union shouldn't vote for a candidate that they think will do so. Surely that's half of the reasoning behind having a RON option.

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

singingstranger wrote:

Ooh, return of the gender equality issues... .

I use lads as a gender neutral term, I'm reclaiming language for the sisterhood

singingstranger wrote:

What harm? Anyone worried about a rogue president running away with the Union shouldn't vote for a candidate that they think will do so. Surely that's half of the reasoning behind having a RON option.

Well, if it was the case that we trusted the president with every decision then we'd only need reps as a sort of civil service to fetch and carry for him.

It's my opinion that democracy needs constant checks and balances to keep everyone honest.

Why exactly does the president need more power?

singingstranger

What New Constitution?

pretty*monster wrote:

It's my opinion that democracy needs constant checks and balances to keep everyone honest.

Why exactly does the president need more power?

Don't get me wrong - maybe he doesn't. But don't forget that we'd still have your own democratic check and balance method by having the right to get an impeachment petition going.

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

singingstranger wrote:

Don't get me wrong - maybe he doesn't. But don't forget that we'd still have your own democratic check and balance method by having the right to get an impeachment petition going.

Wouldn't it be an idea the check the presidents power before we have to get to a state where s/he's done something that warrent's impeachment?

I'm not saying lets not trust the president (well... I don't trust the in-coming or out-going, but that's just me and it's neither here nor there), but the students of ucd elect a whole slew of people to act in their interest, and I think that it is in their interest that power is not centered at the top.
*insert platitudes about grassroots and the like, you know what I@m getting at*

Red Alert

I'm voting for

i am of two minds with regards to it:

(i) i don't like the degree to which it allows the exec to function more or less unhindered by the constitution.

(ii) it removes the women's officer from the exec, which i think is necessary. it does not address the idea of an equality officer and also carts off a few others like the LGB officer in the process - bad idea.

ferdi

elmyra wrote:

the new su fees levy for the new student centre

excuse my ignorance but do i take this to mean that they want to charge students extra in order to fund the new Student centre>?
they can piss right off, i'll pay extra for a new student centre when there are enough books in the library.

singingstranger

What New Constitution?

The IAB have just met and decided that proceeding with the Constitutional Referenda, which had not been given their fortnight's notice, will now take place next week and not along with the other polls this week.

You heard it here first!

HappyCrackHead

I'm voting for

singingstranger wrote:

The IAB have just met and decided that proceeding with the Constitutional Referenda, which had not been given their fortnight's notice, will now take place next week and not along with the other polls this week.

This is true i just found out myself. Well its goods to see that the IAB actually rules the right way from time to time.

I apologise if my post appears biased however we live in a free society and this referendum should be talked about. The reason i've taken such a hard line in this thread is the simple fact that those proposing the constitution were/are behaving in a questionable manner.

About the 900 signatures, ok you signed it but i must say the rushed nature of this whole thing does smell a bit fishy and anyone can understand my skepticism. HOWEVER i very much doubt James and Peter and Dan or whoever waited for each signatary to read the whole new constitution. People put their names on peices of paper because someone asks them to. Someone they're supposed to be able to trust. I'm gonna take a bit of high ground and remind you that only a very tiny percentage of the people who are elligable to vote have actually red the proposed constitution, i have and its not good.

WE are supposed to be able to trust our officers, but this whole debackle proves that we cant. Many of these people are careerists looking to further their own agendas, or at least this is how it seems to me. and one particular agenda is to give the UCDSU president greater powers. The President is supposed to be a liason, administrator and coordinator not a dictator or diciplinarian.

one question for panda, why should the woman's officer or GEO be removed from exec? can you give me a valid reason considering that you think other marginalised groups (and dont dare suggest women are not still marginalised in our society) such as LGBT and disabilties aught to remain on exec. Surely the Irish language officer is a less "important" position???????

Byrno

What New Constitution?

Right before I start my rant against this thread I'd better say who I am... My name is Colm Byrne. I'm a long time reader of boards.ie but a first time poster. I am currently the Outlying Faculties Officer (thus sitting on Exec, but not voting) and 2nd Med Class Rep. I've just been elected Health Sciences Programme Officer (sorry that there wasn't a me v RON vote but the Returning Officer decided not to have RON in the PO elections).

Grand so, on to the rant.

To start a new constitution is needed as the current one is a mess due to the Constitutional changes brought i with the Sabbat Elections. I believe this is a vast improvement on the current one, a constitution that hasn't changed really since it was brought in in the '70s.

1. The composition of Exec.
At the minute there are 9 voting members of Exec and 5 non-voting (plus the Secretary, but sure that's not important Gav!). If the constitution doesn't go through the PO's won't even be on Exec constitutionally, let alone voting members. In the proposed new Exec there would be 15 voting members plus the Secretary. Surely it is more democratic to have 15 voting members instead of 9? Also the ridiculous situation, which I have to endure, where people sit on Exec but can't vote (which is a rare occurance, we've only had one vote this year) will, be eliminated. Also to add to the democracy the PO's would be directly accountable to council AND their programme forums. Thus Exec will be more democratic than the current situation.

2. Officer Board.
This is proposed as with the addition of 10 PO's it was felt that Exec would be too large to effecively make decisions if 24+ Officers&Sec were on it. There were 2 ideas - PO Board or Officer Board. It was felt that an Officer Board with the PO's on Exec would make more sense. Sure why should the Irish Language Officer whom vote on Exec and not the PO's who represent the different Faculties? (Sorry, I keep using Faculties. I'm old school, ie pre-2005, so I keep forgetting!) Exec works best when Faculty specific issues are brought to the table as it can be very hard to bring them to council. It's what I've been doing this year by bringing ET issues (it's where I'm based for my lectures. I don't really know Carysfort well, not that their issues aren't important) to Exec and I've felt it has worked well. This leaves the Officers to do their jobs which is organising the various weeks and campaigning on individual issues. They will still be able to bring up any specific issues at the Officer board meetings which is predominantly what goes on at Exec anyway. We don't do a lot of voting anyway, it is just somewhere to get support for campaigns or air any issues that have come up.

Anyway that's all I have to say at the mo cause I'm tired and all I want to do is go home, eat and watch TV. I may rant more tomorrow!

PS The SCX is a really good idea as for one it gives a 25m Swimming Pool and a gym run by the students. Thus it wil be cheaper than the current gym plus you will be able to swim!

PPS I don't think this should be a sticky if the first post remains so biased.

dajaffa

Well said Byrno : )

Anyway, I'd just like to mention that it looks likely the constitution won't run until October, cause 2 weeks notice has to be given again, and you can't really run it the last week of term.

singingstranger

What New Constitution?

Byrno wrote:

At the minute there are 9 voting members of Exec and 5 non-voting (plus the Secretary, but sure that's not important Gav!)

Die.

Blowfish

Don't Know?

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Hey guess what, they're trying to swing 3 referenda by us hoping we'll be good little robots and vote yes to all.

Right, ignoring what to vote for in the referendum's for a second, does anyone else think that the SU is absolutely crap at communication? I say this because this is actually the first time i have heard about these referendums at all. I discovered the plans for the new student centre completely by accident sometime last week (somebody had left some sort of brochure on the table) and still have no idea what the third referendum is about. Maybe it's because i'm pretty much only ever in the CSI or Science buildings, but would it really be that difficult for the SU to email us about these things?

HappyCrackHead

I'm voting for

ITS not the SU's fault that this is the first time you've heard about these referenda. The hope is in certain quarters that people will just vote yes, hense my mentioning of being good little robots.

I'm going to request PeachyPants remove this thread's Sticky status for the time being. Given the reschedualling of the referendum.

That should quiet your belly aching.

Samos

Blowfish wrote:

Right, ignoring what to vote for in the referendum's for a second, does anyone else think that the SU is absolutely crap at communication? ... Maybe it's because i'm pretty much only ever in the CSI or Science buildings, but would it really be that difficult for the SU to email us about these things?

An email has been sent to every student's ucdconnect email account, but it is very short notice.

Blowfish

Don't Know?

Ah much better, it does actually explain everything, and at least make students aware of whats happening.