Is it EVER okay?

Vainglory

There's a bit of a kick-up going on in the SU at the moment, and while I won't go into all the details until after the Independent Appeals Board meet tomorrow, this is the basics of it. I'd be really interested as to your opinions, if you have two minutes to give them.

Do you think that in any case, the College should have the authority to overrule SU decisions made by SU Council, or decisions made by Referendum?

Do you think that the Students' Union should always be controlled by its members and the structures that are in place by the Constitution, or do you think the College should be able to veto decisions made by the Union membership if they think it is appropriate?

Although I won't go into the details yet, you can take it that what the Union wants to do is not illegal (and is nothing to do with abortion, if that's what some people are wondering.)

If your answer to the first question is "yes", then what purpose do you think votes by Union members serve if they can always be overruled by the College?

Like I said, I would be genuinely interested in some (sorry to use the word) "non-hack" views.

Red Alert

Ok, we need to get a few definitions straight here first:

i'm going on the assumption that the College means Brady, Nolan etc., that a Decision made is something that directly affects the SU's function. (So we can decide to make the bar non-alco or not sell coke, but we can't make Theatre L the Jane Horgan Jones Theatre).

Before we get into this who are on the IAB? Is it a college or an SU body - does it exist outside of the SU?

Q1: My gut feeling is that the SU's membership ONLY (be it Sabbats, Council, Members) are those who set its policy and direction.
Q2: College cannot veto membership decisions since they are not SU members. Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Jane can you tell us after this IAB meeting what the deal is?

tintinr35

i believe that the college should not be able to over rule decisions made by the SU, you are our representatives and i would imagine are acting in our best interests,
im trying to think of an example of this happening in the irish Govt but my brain is fried....too many exams not enough sleep

but no i believe it is wrong for the college to do so!!

Red Alert

Well there's been a certain kowtowing by Siptu in particular to the current government, which some grass-roots membership are not very happy bunnies about.

hullaballoo

It would be equivalent to the executive trying to overrule the rest of the government. Sort of.

Vainglory

Red Alert wrote:

Ok, we need to get a few definitions straight here first:

i'm going on the assumption that the College means Brady, Nolan etc., that a Decision made is something that directly affects the SU's function. (So we can decide to make the bar non-alco or not sell coke, but we can't make Theatre L the Jane Horgan Jones Theatre).

Before we get into this who are on the IAB? Is it a college or an SU body - does it exist outside of the SU?

Q1: My gut feeling is that the SU's membership ONLY (be it Sabbats, Council, Members) are those who set its policy and direction.
Q2: College cannot veto membership decisions since they are not SU members. Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Jane can you tell us after this IAB meeting what the deal is?

The IAB is the judicial body of the Students' Union. It is, according to the UCDSU constitution, the is the “final tribunal of appeal within the Union” .

Although I like the Jane Horgan-Jones Theatre idea, it isn't something like that

Basically, Council passed a motion which mandated the President to do something that the College don't want him to do. The question facing the IAB is whether the College should have an influence over the affairs of the Union, even if constitutionally the President has to follow the wishes of the membership and if the College's intervention was successful, then the wishes of the membership would not be carried out.

Yes, I'll probably write a long article on the whole affair once it's over.

Red Alert

Not particularly though, wouldn't what you're saying be more like the Sabbats deciding to force a change in union policy.

The problem is that the SU has its functioning and physical being in a sense at the pleasure of the college. So the college may de-facto have the ability to control or influence the SU.

humbert

I think the college should have the right to overrule the unions decisions in extreme or important cases. I think the union should represent the views of the students(though often doesn't) but ultimately the college chooses to acknowledge the union but that is all. Not knowing what this is in reference to means that I cannot comment on this instance. If the college is deemed to have acted unfairly then the union is there to protest with and on the behalf of students, realistically that is all it can do. I think sometimes members of the union think it is more powerful/important than it actually is.
Basically I think if it's purely a union matter then it should be up to the union but otherwise I think the final say should be left to the college, mainly because while I've no doubt there are many greedy people in the governing of the college I have more faith in their leadership than I have in the student union.

My mistake.

Vainglory

I said it wasn't illegal. It's also not anything to do with Coke, the war, etc. etc. It could accurately be described as an issue directly affecting UCD students.

AngelofFire

It would be equivalent to the executive trying to overrule the rest of the government. Sort of.

or the government of ireland being able to overrule a the result of a referendum. Policy passed by the union always has always been passed by bodies with a direct and legitimate connection to students. Ie a referendum by the student body, by council-elected by the student body or by executive-elected by student body. wheres the college is run in a top down nature. Its always important to remember that that college do not always act for the benefit of the students, increase in post grad fees, 1.6 milllion spent on the presidents house which could have been spent on books or more computer spaces. underfunding for arts and human sciences subjects.

The_Minister

It depends on what and why the college are overrling. If the new student centre is to be built somewhere and the college wants to put NCAD there then they can overrule.

Vainglory

They'd be overruling a mandate from SU Council directing the President to act a certain way (which is not illegal).

It's also worth noting that this whole thing is only being decided upon by the IAB because the President of the SU refused to follow the vote from Council.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

They'd be overruling a mandate from SU Council directing the President to act a certain way (which is not illegal).

Could you post a link to the motion? Or at least say which council meeting it was passed in.

humbert

Refused because the college told him not to?

hullaballoo

Something that the college will not allow will probably be considered ultra vires the Students' Union. I would imagine Pierce (sp?) Farrell would be able to tell you, but there will either be (a) an express provision in the constitution that disallows the SU to do anything that the college authority won't allow, or (b) an implied provision of the same.

Red Alert

SO basically,

1 - Council mandates something that college don't like.
2 - President refuses to accept the mandate.
3 - IAB get involved
?

Vainglory

humbert wrote:

Refused because the college told him not to?

Refused because he didnt think it would be in the "best interests of the union", even though Council had explicitly voted otherwise.

Chain of events was..

Council voted in favour of motion
President refused to follow mandate
I appealed President's decision to the IAB (any SU member can appeal any Union decision to the IAB)
College made a submission to the IAB asking them to overrule the mandate.

hullaballoo

Well, surely that's ok. It was just a request, not an order. I still stand by my initial assertion about the contents of the constitution.

The_Minister

Is this the new president or the old one?
Can you just tell us the particulers so we can make an informed choice.

Vainglory

hullaballoo wrote:

Well, surely that's ok. It was just a request, not an order. I still stand by my initial assertion about the contents of the constitution.

Yep, but if the IAB allow the College to influence their decision, then I think that's just as bad.

Firespinner wrote:

Is this the new president or the old one?
Can you just tell us the particulers so we can make an informed choice.

Erm..Current president. This is the motion in question.

Motion on notice
Council notes the recent discussion on UCD’s Governing Authority regarding access to the minutes of the Finance Committee.

Council further notes that although the Finance Committee is a sub-committee of the Governing Authority, governors are denied full and open access to these minutes.

Council notes with concern that this is irregular when compared to the practices of other universities regarding access to Finance Committee minutes.

Council observes that the SU President James Carroll is a member of the Finance Committee and as such is in a position to furnish other members of the Governing Authority with these minutes.

Council notes existing UCDSU mandate that SU representatives on university committees shall make available all decisions made by these committees which are relevant to students.

Council therefore mandates the SU president to provide the other student representatives on Governing Authority with copies of all minutes of the Finance Committee which are available to him.

Proposed by Jane Horgan-Jones, Education Vice-President
Seconded by Oisín Kelly, Postgraduate Arts

humbert

Normally I'd say the president should do what the council vote for but given that it is the SU council I'll reserve judgement till I know more.

Actually as far as I understand it I'd be in favour of that.

The_Minister

The SU got in huge trouble when this was abused before - thats why they don't think you should have it - its some of the college's most sensitive material, and you ma'am, are no fan of the college.

hullaballoo

Vainglory, could you merge your own posts from now on. Just edit the stuff in that you want to add. Cheers.

Vainglory

Firespinner wrote:

The SU got in huge trouble when this was abused before - thats why they don't think you should have it - its some of the college's most sensitive material, and you ma'am, are no fan of the college.

Do you mean when a load of Councillors on Governing Authority voted for a rise in postgraduate fees and the SU President at the time told their constituencies that they had voted that way, thus making them very scared of losing their seats?

Don't you think that was the right thing to do? Do you think people like that should be allowed to take decisions about raising fees without having to admit that they did it?

If there's nothing to hide then there isn't a problem.

Anyway, this isn't like the last time. The last time, information from Finance was made PUBLICALLY available. I only want it to be made available to other Student members of Governing Authority, as is the case in TCD, DCU etc..

The_Minister

Maybe all members of the Governing Authority can't be trusted to keep their mouths shut?


I think that decisions regarding fees should be taken in private, weighed on the facts not at the whim of students who cannot see past their wallet. Some decisions, to get an honest answer, need to occur in private.

Red Alert

Firespinner, if a decision is to be taken or proposed by anybody she/he must be big enough to put their name to their views. Imagine if my local TD was secretly in favour of Guantanamo or criminalised homosexuality I would not want to vote him in. Imagine therefore if the TD I elect was allowed make certain statements in private to avoid his constituents!! If there are fee-supporting people on the governing authority they should be proud enough to wear it on their sleeve and not hide behind a ridiculous degree of confidentiality such as this.

Would I be wrong to presume that the Finance (or any other) commitee's operation is subject to the Freedom of Information act? It's my understanding that a Freedom of Information request can be made to any state body such as UCD.

I agree with JHJ's motion here. Mr Carroll is not just James Caroll, he is the union's representative. He must follow council's mandate, he cannot refuse to do so even if the college, Red Alert on boards.ie or George Bush agree with him. If he doesn't agree with the job he's asked to do, he can resign and walk away.

The_Minister

Red Alert wrote:

Firespinner, if a decision is to be taken or proposed by anybody she/he must be big enough to put their name to their views. Imagine if my local TD was secretly in favour of Guantanamo or criminalised homosexuality I would not want to vote him in. Imagine therefore if the TD I elect was allowed make certain statements in private to avoid his constituents!!

They are allowed - its called cabinet confidentiality. Its enshrined in the Constitution. At some point in the decision-making process for any elected body there must be a place where they can talk "at ease". Not be pc or worried about the voters but for the overal good. One of the main flaws of democracy is that it makes representatives whores to the whim of the people.

Red Alert

The cabinet are subject to final approval of the oireachtas before anything can actually happen.

It seems that the finance commitee do have a high degree of autonomous power, and it's likely that others on the GA are supportive of this closed-shop approach.

Sangre

Firespinner has a point. Just because a TD* pushes for a certain agenda in private doesn't mean he will do it in his public capacity. A TD should be allowed to have an opinion differing from that which he lobbies for his constituencies.

*or whatever

pretty*monster

Sangre wrote:

Firespinner has a point. Just because a TD* pushes for a certain agenda in private doesn't mean he will do it in his public capacity. A TD should be allowed to have an opinion differing from that which he lobbies for his constituencies.

*or whatever

What? A personal oppinion perhaps, but surely not one he acts on in his capacity as a TD. That's essentially lying to the electorate... we can't have that.

Sangre

haha..I just realised what I said makes NO sense. And by no sense I mean completely and utterly the EXACT opposite of what I was trying to say.