Is it a case of weak Welfare Officer......Weak President

tintinr35

After learning today about the recent row between Jane Horgan Jones (Education Officer SU) and Dan Hayden (Welfare Officer, Incoming President of SU) over the displaying of abortion related material. i think that the Students union is going to be in a spot of trouble next year because it seems as if the incoming president is not willing to be impartial in his current role as welfare officer and represent both sides of the camp, pro and anti abortion. he is essentially hiding behind a 13 yr old obselete law, which he agreed was "stupid" but is doing nothing about. the paper today quotes him as saying that the union could potentially loose the bar and all the union shops and welfare services by dealing with the issue........does this sound completly ridiculous or what, does he actually think that is going to happen.
i am not fully aware of the in's and out's of exactly what went on but from what i know i agree with Jane Horgan Jones and i feel that it is someone with a strong personality and a willingness to stand up to authorities that is needed to lead the union, not someone who is going to sit u down and make u tea while quivering in their boots

scop

I generally dont like to get involved with these things these days but what irks me about Dan is not his politics or Janes or anybodys, I couldnt give two hoots but he seems like a classic politician willing to mumber anything to avoid doing anything.

HappyCrackHead

I think ya'll have hit the nail on the head about Dan.

If the university tries to screw us over in some regard next year (as they often do try to do, fees etc.) don't expect much help from Dan.

Then again, you get what you vote for. So people will only have themselves to blame.

singingstranger

tintinr35 wrote:

the paper today quotes him as saying that the union could potentially loose the bar and all the union shops and welfare services by dealing with the issue

Where?!??!

tintinr35

singingstranger wrote:

Where?!??!

page two of the observer

mad lad

thats just what ucd needs scaremongering and a climate of hysteria about possibly breaking a law that no-ones been successfully prosecuited for breaking.....he must read the Sunday Independent

pretty*monster

If only peole had twiged this before the election, eh?

Riamfada

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Then again, you get what you vote for. So people will only have themselves to blame.

Isnt there always the option of a vote of no confidence if he dosnt seem to be doing his job . Like what happened to Jimmy C this year?

mad lad

that would have to be passed by council.....which could hardly be described as a democratic organ

Riamfada

well how about the rallying of students against the SU. Kind of an October revolution if say, a third party was to organise mass pressure on the SU and College.

tintinr35

Grimes wrote:

Isnt there always the option of a vote of no confidence if he dosnt seem to be doing his job . Like what happened to Jimmy C this year?

i think even if he did somthing........i dunno i cant think now.......but somthing really retarded it would be very unlikey that he would be ousted

mad lad

well hypothetically lets say.....he refused to carry out a union mandate and actively prevented others from doing so?

singingstranger

UCDSU Constitution, Article 11, Section 9:
(i) A Sabbatical Officer may be removed by a referendum held in accordance with Article 6(3) & (4) of this Constitution. Such shall be the only means, other than resignation, by which a Sabbatical Officer may be removed from office.

(ii) Where such a proposal is approved it shall take effect upon the declaration of the Chief Returning Officer.

Article 6(3) & (4) are the standard referendum procedures, including

UCDSU Constitution, Article 6, Section 3:
(ii) Such Referendums shall be called by the Returning Officers on petition in writing of not less than 3.5% members of the Union at the time of submission or on the direction of the Union Council.

(iii) Such Referendums shall be held not more than three weeks and not less than two weeks, from the date of their being called.

(iv) Any Referendum under this Section shall be deemed to have been passed if the majority of the votes cast at such referendum shall have been cast in favour of the proposal and not less than 15% of the members of the Union shall have voted at such referendum.

So if Pierce can collect the 800-odd signatures needed off his own bat without any student awareness of anything bad, it's not beyond some students with initiative to call an impeachment referendum if you really think it necessary.

tintinr35

ah poor dan....he is not even in the job yet and here we are organising a coup d'etait already!!!

seriously tho tea and sympathy will not cut it with the ucd authorities they fúck us about way too much!

pretty*monster

I'm litterally going to die laughing.
I could have told you all this months ago.

Riamfada

I dont wana sound like a complete greenhorn here but did Caroll help that much with modularisation/end the rip off ect ect

mad lad

maybe if we ignore him he'll go away

Riamfada

mad lad wrote:

maybe if we ignore him he'll go away

Well the SU only have power because people recognise the power. If needs be ignore it. But you need the mass, anyway this is all just supposing Hayden is a bad prez

beanyb

tintinr35 wrote:

he is essentially hiding behind a 13 yr old obselete law, which he agreed was "stupid" but is doing nothing about.

The guy is SU welfare officer not a TD what the hell do you expect him to do about laws of the state? You often here people saying that nobody in college cares about the union, why do you think the government would?

You may think a law is obsolete, but that doesnt change the fact that it is still a law.

pretty*monster

Grimes wrote:

I dont wana sound like a complete greenhorn here but did Caroll help that much with modularisation/end the rip off ect ect

Nope, no help at all, bar showing up on the actual day of the modularisation protest.

pretty*monster

Grimes wrote:

Well the SU only have power because people recognise the power. If needs be ignore it. But you need the mass, anyway this is all just supposing Hayden is a bad prez

Um... can we perhaps not assosiate the union entirely with the president, it's not his little toy town (aside, to keep things this way, not no if that bogey constitution comes up again this year).
Whatever kind of presiden Dan becomes there will be strong and active class reps trying to do right by the students of this college.

Riamfada

pretty*monster wrote:

Um... can we perhaps not assosiate the union entirely with the president, it's not his little toy town (aside, to keep things this way, not no if that bogey constitution comes up again this year).
Whatever kind of presiden Dan becomes there will be strong and active class reps trying to do right by the students of this college.

apologies, i know there are alot of hardworking people involved in the system . But im sure if anyone isnt doing a good enough job by simply boycotting the position would force a change.

pretty*monster

Grimes wrote:

apologies, i know there are alot of hardworking people involved in the system . But im sure if anyone isnt doing a good enough job by simply boycotting the position would force a change.

Perhaps.. but at what cost, I mean what do you mean boycot... I don't thinnk any boycot of the union services (shops, bars, copy centre) would be workable, or indeed desirable...

I boycot of representation, i.e. not recognising the president's decisions, would only be workable if one refused to recognise the legitimacy of all union reps (i.e. your class rep no longer speaks for you on anything from a staff/student committee meeting to acedemic council) creates a power vacume... lord knows how that would end up, but it would likely set back UCD democracy and do more harm to student representation in general than the union president specifically.

By his nature I don't expect Dan to do anything obviously awful enough to warrent remioval by refurendum, or even cencure at council... though if he did the option's always open.

Tragically all we can do is work damn hard to see someone excellent elected next year.

singingstranger

pretty*monster wrote:

Tragically all we can do is work damn hard to see someone excellent elected next year.

or... call me mental, but how about just working WITH him and trying to get him to work your way, rather than just giving up on the Presidency for a year? Seems like a more constructive idea...

pretty*monster

Well sure, if you want to be constructive *sigh*

singingstranger

pretty*monster wrote:

Well sure, if you want to be constructive *sigh*

How did you put it? I think it was "Oh, God forbid!"...

Red Alert

Can someone tell me in 5 lines how they could end up losing shops and bar?

singingstranger

To quote the Hayden, if we went to the European Courts again like in the SPUC case, it could cost millions and bankrupt the Union.

I have no idea what a case would cost but I know that the Union has an annual income of about €1m and outgoings not too far short of it, so millions really would be a perillous amount for the Union to risk.

pretty*monster

It's oh so likely to happen.

Stabshauptmann

I dont know, suppose if there was a successful prosecution and fine so big the union couldnt pay it, they'd have to file chapter 11?

[edit]damn slow irish broaband connection, worse than dial up. What singingstranger said[/edit]

singingstranger

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I dont know, suppose if there was a successful prosecution and fine so big the union couldnt pay it, they'd have to file chapter 11?

Well, Chapter 11 being the equivalent in the US but yeah, that's about it.