Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it EVER okay?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    pretty*monster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭pretty*monster


    If James wasn't happy to prioritise his role as SU president and his duty to uphold UCDSU’s constitution over following the rules of GA and it's Finance committee he should have resigned.

    If he felt that it was in the best interests of the Union not to release the finance committee's meetings he could have brought a motion to the last council over turning the previous motion. In fact, when Jane questioned at the last council about when he would release the minutes to the student members of GA he attempted to dodge the question, but implied that he'd do it as soon as he got around to it. At no point did he show his intention to break mandate.

    Instead James spinelessly allowed the IAB to undermine the constitution he is bound to up hold, the constitution that UCD student pay him to uphold.

    Whether or not releasing the minutes is in the best interests of the union (and to my mind it most certainly is) is not the point. If James was convinced that it was not there are legitimate channels through which he could have challenged councils mandate.

    The IAB is not such a channel and it's ruling in this case was a disgrace. It is not up to the IAB to decide what direction UCDSU should take.


  • Options
    #93
    Red Alert
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,486 ✭✭✭Red Alert


    If the future president decides he is going to release the minutes, does the IAB's ruling prevent him doing so?


  • Options
    #94
    singingstranger
    Registered Users Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭singingstranger


    As far as I can remember, yes - James wasn't mentioned by name on the motion if I remember correctly, it mandated 'The President'. If it was him by name then the motion becomes void on July 1st unless James becomes President again within the next five years*.

    **EDIT: having looked back, it might be open to interpretation because James is mentioned elsewhere, but the sentence reads "Council therefore mandates the UCDSU President to", and not "Council mandates the President James Carroll" or whatever.


    * This is always a point of contention - motions are de facto assumed to be valid for that long, and referenda for ten, but there's no legislative basis for this.


Advertisement