New Constitution Referendum 12th/13th of April

The_Minister

I don't really see the big change. (Admission: skimmed both)

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

Firespinner wrote:

I don't really see the big change. (Admission: skimmed both)

Well no, there are lots of little changes that ammount to a big change in the slant and focus of the union.

And you have to really trawl through them both to get a feel for it (I know because it took me an entire afternoon with a fine tooth comb to get properly up in arms about it).

The_Minister

If you look too closely for a problem you'll spot it. Most of the arguements that I heard against it were about the union becoming a "service provider" but thats all it is these days.


Edit: What I mean is, are you sure there are problems or is your own mistrust of the KBC making you see a conspiracy?

singingstranger

What New Constitution?

Attaching (unofficial) personal copy of the old one, which is - as far as I can guarantee anyway - exactly the same as the one that used to be on ucdsu.net, except formatted better.

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

Firespinner wrote:

If you look too closely for a problem you'll spot it. Most of the arguements that I heard against it were about the union becoming a "service provider" but thats all it is these days.


Edit: What I mean is, are you sure there are problems or is your own mistrust of the KBC making you see a conspiracy?

No, I'm actually naturally a very trusting person. I'd much rather go 'yay, new constitution, deadly!' than give up my free time having campaign meetings and organising a No campaign.

Yeah, mostly all the union is these days as a service provider, but, um that's bad.

dajaffa

I have to say personally I don't have a problem with an aspect of the SU being a service provider, (though perhaps it is too focused on this function at times).

The night bus this year was a great success, and it is certainly beneficial to students from a safety perspective knowing they'll be brought back to campus. Let's face it, it's pretty dangerous walking back from town if you haven't been able to get/afford a taxi.

HappyCrackHead

I'm voting for

Tis bad indeed. I'm unfortunate enough to have devoted a whole weekend, when trust me i had better things to do, to reading the new constitution and comparing it to the old one.

YEah it is supposed to be a service provider but thats not ALL its supposed to do. And for the best thing the president can say he did all year was the nite bus and phone chargers is a freaking JOKE. At least he didnt try to take credit for ACTUAL things like the anti-modularisation campiagn or rip-off-campus.

We weren't just opposing the new constitution for the craic, when this crap came out it was 4 weeks to exams, no one wants to be running any kinda campaign then. And given some of the "untruths" that the Yes side for the Student centre came out with during their campaign something similar was to be expected from the new const/women's officer one.

The_Minister

Can you be more specific? (what would you put on a leaflet?)
The fears here seem very empheral and ill-defined.

Vainglory

I'm voting for

Firespinner wrote:

Can you be more specific? (what would you put on a leaflet?)
The fears here seem very empheral and ill-defined.

I have 4000 "No" campaign leaflets in my office. I can leave one in the general office for you and you can pick it up if you like?

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

I have 4000 "No" campaign leaflets in my office. I can leave one in the general office for you and you can pick it up if you like?

Where's the general office? (I probably know it but not the name.)

Vainglory

I'm voting for

Straight ahead of you when you walk into the SU corridor. I think it says "General Office" on it. Glass front. I'll leave it in there now.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

Straight ahead of you when you walk into the SU corridor. I think it says "General Office" on it. Glass front. I'll leave it in there now.

Thank you. I'm not trying to be a bother, but I want to see what the problem is.

Vainglory

I'm voting for

I should add that there are a lot of things wrong with it that we didn't include in the manifesto due to lack of time and lack of space. I don't have time to go into them now but I will sometime.

It's no bother.

The_Minister

It was closed when I arrived so I'll pick it up tomorrow.

The_Minister

Firespinner wrote:

It was closed when I arrived so I'll pick it up tomorrow.

Got it. Thank you Vainglory



Ps would you object to a men's officer in tandem with the woman's officer instead of a gender equality officer?

Vainglory

I'm voting for

Firespinner wrote:

Got it. Thank you Vainglory



Ps would you object to a men's officer in tandem with the woman's officer instead of a gender equality officer?

If a mens officer deals with issues of mens health, and a womens officer deals with issues of women's health, then surely the Welfare officer next year will find themselves with a lot of free time..

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

If a mens officer deals with issues of mens health, and a womens officer deals with issues of women's health, then surely the Welfare officer next year will find themselves with a lot of free time..

Does the welfare officer only deal with men's issues? Besides I thought that women's officer answered to the welfare officer? I thought the welfare officer helped with grants and hardship etc as well? Boy, thats a lot of questions.

neutral

What New Constitution?

It would be great if the Deputy President and the Exec officers ran all the campaigns and the Welfare Officer was left free to deal with personal cases and sit on college committees.

Between them, Disabilities / LGBTO / International / Womens or Gender Equality should be able to cover all the campaigns with the halp of the Deputy President.

Vainglory

I'm voting for

Firespinner wrote:

Does the welfare officer only deal with men's issues? Besides I thought that women's officer answered to the welfare officer? I thought the welfare officer helped with grants and hardship etc as well? Boy, thats a lot of questions.

A huge part of the Welfare Officer's job is health. He runs campaigns like Healthy Eating Week, Mental Health Awareness Week etc that apply equally to both sexes. For the past couple of years there has also been a Men's Health week run by the Welfare Office, probably to couteract the Breast Cancer Awareness events/other womens' health issues run by the Womens' Officer. Neither have been neglected.

If both briefs were to be given to the Welfare Officer, then I think this would be negative in that it would remove the Womens' Officer who can also campaign on issues of womens' involvement in the union and college. People who run for womens' officer generally (or should do) have a specific interest in that sort of thing, and have run very effective campaigns in the past.

If all briefs for health and gender equality were given to a part-time, unpaid officer (i.e. the Gender Equality Officer), then this would be a disaster. If you look at Carol-Anne Rushe's manifesto (who was elected Womens' Officer) then you'll see that she promises to run a Mens Health Week, a Womens' Health Week, and a Gender Equality Week.

It is hard enough for the exec officers we have to run just ONE week associated with their brief throughout the year, considering their other committments. Expecting the same sort of officer (ie unpaid, full time student) to run three such weeks will mean quite simply that one or more of the aspects of his/her job gets left behind. It is far better to have individual officers dedicated to organising events particular to their area of interest. Plus, if they want to do it, why not let them? It's not costing the union any money, after all.

Health and those issues that particularly apply to men can stay within the brief of the welfare officer (as has been done, very well, for the past two years) and the womens' officer, while dealing with issues of health if she likes, also has the specific interest of increasing female involvement within the union and college.

Any other scenario, as far as I can see, will lead to one aspect of the discussion (mens health, womens health, womens involvement in the union) being left out.

I'll just quote you some of the stuff from the "Yes" campaign's manifesto in favour of the Gender Equality officer to show you how ridiculous and rushed it all was.

"However, nowadays, problems of gender discrimination are equally applicable to men and women"

Anyone, male or female, who thinks this is true is quite mad. I can pull out reams and reams of statistics if anyone really wants me to but I think we all have common sense and know this is not true.

"problems of gender discrimination are equally applicable to men and women, such as mental health"

I wasn't aware that mental health was a gender discrimination issue. I thought it was a HEALTH issue.

"Currently, with women composing 53% of UCD students, women are at last involved in College life to a degree truly reflective of their numbers"

Are half the sabbats women? Are half the University Vice-Presidents women? Have we ever had a woman University President? When was the last woman SU President? Are half of your lecturers women? Is this complete horse ****? (Yes)

And finally, to top it off..

"The Gender Equality Officer, whose job it will be to address issues of discrimination against both sexes. The Gender Equality Officer will highlight womens' health issues such as Breast Cancer, but will also run campaigns on Men's health, such as testicular cancer awareness"

BREAST CANCER AND TESTICULAR CANCER ARE NOT ISSUES OF "GENDER DISCRIMINATION". They are health issues that pertain to men and women separately because WE HAVE DIFFERENT GENITALIA.

The people who were running the Yes campaign don't want a Gender Equality Officer. As I've shown, they try to argue that women are never discriminated against these days, and if anything, men are EQUALLY discriminated against because of their gender. When are men discriminated against simply because they are MEN? Sure, PEOPLE can be discriminated against because of race, religion etc. But simply because they are men? Uncommon. Not non-existent, but definitely nothing compared to the inequalities that exist for women. But according to the Yes campaign, they don't exist at all.

So, what they REALLY want, is some sort of unpaid, student Health Officer. Even though there's nothing in their proposed amendment about Health for the Gender Equality officer, they talk about health all the way through their manifesto.
(i) The role of the Gender Equality Officer shall be the campaigning and lobbying on all issues
relating to discrimination and equality. S/he shall have the assistance of the Campaigns and
Communications Vice-President, Education Vice-President and Welfare Vice-President in
fulfilling this duty.
(ii) The Gender Equality Officer shall assist and be assisted by the Welfare Vice-President and
Campaigns and Communications Vice-President in dealing with and furthering a greater level of
knowledge among the Union membership of any student issues relating to discrimination.
(iii) S/he shall be responsible for the co-ordination of a fundraising event for a women’s charity and
men’s charity by the 24th of April.
(iv) S/he shall sit on any committee to which s/he is elected and of which s/he is a member.
(v) S/he will deal with all relevant personal cases.

Possibly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. Thankyou please.

Vainglory

I'm voting for

Firespinner wrote:

Does the welfare officer only deal with men's issues? Besides I thought that women's officer answered to the welfare officer? I thought the welfare officer helped with grants and hardship etc as well? Boy, thats a lot of questions.

Oh, and I deal with grants, not Dan.

neutral

What New Constitution?

I hope the world's longest post there wasn't aimed at me.

I suppose what I was wondering was:

Would an extra Exec Officer to focus on Welfare Campaigns not under the LGBTQ, International, Womens or Disability banners be a good idea to free up the Welfare Officer to focus entirely on personal cases and the Creche / Medical Centre committees etc.??

(Lets call them the Welfare Campaigns Officer so this doesn't end in a Gender Equality / Mens / Womens, etc. debate)

neutral

What New Constitution?

That should obviously say would an extra Exec Officer be a good idea??!

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

neutral wrote:

I hope the world's longest post there wasn't aimed at me.

I suppose what I was wondering was:

Would an extra Exec Officer to focus on Welfare Campaigns not under the LGBTQ, International, Womens or Disability banners be a good idea to free up the Welfare Officer to focus entirely on personal cases and the Creche / Medical Centre committees etc.??

(Lets call them the Welfare Campaigns Officer so this doesn't end in a Gender Equality / Mens / Womens, etc. debate)

You can't really expect a part-time unpaid officer to run more than one awareness week (certainly not a great awareness week), I don't think we should be easing the burden on our full time paid officers.

I mean, if you look at the amount of work that the education officer has done this year it's quite plain that I good sabat can do a hell of a lot. It's just not possible that an exec will have the time to do that ammount of work.

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

I mean, if you look at the amount of work that the education officer has done this year it's quite plain that I good sabat can do a hell of a lot. .

Surely the welfare officer has done more? I see his picture in the paper much more often
*****-stir*;)


Brilliant post Vainglory, I'm not sure if i should try and argue with it!

pretty*monster

I'm voting for

Firespinner wrote:

Surely the welfare officer has done more? I see his picture in the paper much more often
*****-stir*;)

Dude, you are such a troll.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

Oh, and I deal with grants, not Dan.

I thought grants were fer livin on -->hence--> welfare no?

Vainglory

I'm voting for

Firespinner wrote:

I thought grants were fer livin on -->hence--> welfare no?

It is in a lot of other SU's, but for some reason under the constitution grants are my responsibility. They'd probably be my specialist Mastermind topic.