SU Council Motions, Wed 1st November 2006

Chakar

pigeonbutler wrote:

It will be back. But without any reference to deportations. I'm not going to bring a motion saying that we should campaign against only UCD students being deported. That would be wrong. We can't oppose blindly all deportations. If we are to have any immigration policy some people will be deported. It is individually tragic and should be minimised but it has to happen. And I'm not going to propose that the Union place a UCD students case at a higher priority than someone else's in case of a deportation order. One would have to ask why the UCD student is being deported? Are they here illegally? We ought to be examining and proposing a fair immigration policy rather than having blanket opposition to any government action on immigration.

Yeah I think the Executive could have some input as I think most of would support having a all rounded immigration policy.

AngelofFire

pigeonbutler wrote:

It will be back. .

Arnold Swartzenegger Style!, I like it.

Scraggs

Ja, toll und so weiter.

Vielen danke to Herr Firespinner for the input there, nice to see a bit of communication betw. SU and students for once.... oooh feel the bitterness:p

dajaffa

If my memory serves me correctly (+ it very well may not, it was a long council) the cigarettes one was split into 2. The stuff about not selling them in the shops was defeated but the stuff about creating designated smoking areas was passed.

Stabshauptmann

Sorry I had to duck out early (duty calls). Did anyboy object to the food coop? Any very close results, I thought the cans thing funny because a few ppl told me to expect a problem. Couldnt see anyone opposing it, and in the end noone did

panda100

AngelofFire wrote:

Arnold Swartzenegger Style!, I like it.

first stop UCD class rep,next stop governer of California....

Oh God dont say I have to sit through THAT every fortnight. Most pointless three hours of my life. For me the descisive moment when I knew I was in cloud cuckoo land was Barry Colfer likening the shell to sea campaigan as a defining world event like JFK's assasination

Chakar

panda100 wrote:

first stop UCD class rep,next stop governer of California....

Oh God dont say I have to sit through THAT every fortnight. Most pointless three hours of my life. For me the descisive moment when I knew I was in cloud cuckoo land was Barry Colfer likening the shell to sea campaigan as a defining world event like JFK's assasination

Yeah Barry can be very dramatic.I think he's been stuck in that office too long.

But it looks like this is going to be an excellent year for UCDSU.

panda100

Chakar wrote:

Yeah Barry can be very dramatic.I think he's been stuck in that office too long.

.

Theres being dramatic and making a good point like Paul Dillion and Jen and being dramatic and being stupid like countless people were last night.

Anyway the only good thing to come out of council last night was getting a free chewing gum of Mike Pat and possible getting a few ideas for future motions.

dajaffa

panda100 wrote:

Oh God dont say I have to sit through THAT every fortnight. Most pointless three hours of my life.

Ah last night was worse that they'll usually be, I mean 12 motions might have been some sort of record. Most should have way fewer motions + be shorter, though academic council + new sec elcetions will be at next council on top of the usual. Have to say thou it really could have been a lot worse last night given the amount of motions.

Have to say thou I'm suprised at how easily the gay blood one went through, a similar motion was defeated at USI last year.

gubbie

dajaffa wrote:

Ah last night was worse that they'll usually be, I mean 12 motions might have been some sort of record. Most should have way fewer motions + be shorter, though academic council + new sec elcetions will be at next council on top of the usual. Have to say thou it really could have been a lot worse last night given the amount of motions.

Have to say thou I'm suprised at how easily the gay blood one went through, a similar motion was defeated at USI last year.

Good on Michael Clarke for that meeting. It was only 3 hours (I say only cos-and others will back me up-I've sat through 4 hour councils and they wouldn't have as many motions)

panda100

dajaffa wrote:

Have to say thou I'm suprised at how easily the gay blood one went through, a similar motion was defeated at USI last year.

It is a worthy motion though and you sold it well.Theres such a shortage of blood in this country. I have tried to give countless of times but because of really stupid regulations (you cant have lived in England for the last 10 years ) I am not able to give it!

dajaffa

panda100 wrote:

Theres such a shortage of blood in this country. I have tried to give countless of times but because of really stupid regulations (you cant have lived in England for the last 10 years ) I am not able to give it!

Totally, + I've just realised I prob wont be able to give blood for ages cause I'm starting my Hep B immunisations on Monday

gubbie wrote:

Good on Michael Clarke for that meeting. It was only 3 hours (I say only cos-and others will back me up-I've sat through 4 hour councils and they wouldn't have as many motions)

Yep, last (well penultimate technically) council of last year went until 9:50, + featured events like the chair resigning, + withdrawing his resignation + our young SS banging his head off the wall (14 pages of minutes resulted, eep)

pretty*monster

Chakar wrote:

But it looks like this is going to be an excellent year for UCDSU.

How do you figure?

Can someone clarify what happened with the smoking motion, I had a PhilSoc event to run last night.

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

Can someone clarify what happened with the smoking motion, I had a PhilSoc event to run last night.

It was split in two, with the stupid bit beaten, and the bit about outdoor smoking areas passed.

Chakar

pretty*monster wrote:

How do you figure?

Council is more democratic so people with overriding interests will not be able to dominate Council and push through motions like last year.

Its all good.

AngelofFire

Chakar wrote:

Council is more democratic so people with overriding interests will not be able to dominate Council and push through motions like last year.

Its all good.

Great that means that the KBC won't be submitting any motions in support of Charles Haughey again.

pigeonbutler

KBC did nothing of the sort. Paul Lynam is a member of Dublin South Ogra actually. And some the things that were said over the course of that debate were despicable. Not by yourself Chris but others came out with awful comments. One I remember is "I hope it's f**king slow and painful for him" Another comment made compared him to Adolf Hitler.

I'd imagine the motion was put in just to get up your noses (which isn't really ideal) but it should have been treated a bit more respectfully all the same.

gubbie

And many angry scary voices have been exchanged for good speakers Council ran so smoothly-you can't deny it. Everyone listened and was listened to... well I'm not the greatest for that cos I've got the attention span of a 2 year old and kept getting distracted by Barry's nice shoes, pandas glossy lips and the fact that I have never had to look back at singingstranger cos he was always sitting at the front of the room.

pretty*monster

The_Minister wrote:

It was split in two, with the stupid bit beaten, and the bit about outdoor smoking areas passed.

That outdoor smoking areas bit was terribly vague, no?
If it translates into not being allowed smoke outside the arts block there will be trouble.

Stabshauptmann

Ye even say it yourselves, the department of lung cancer. I think it would be nice if there was a nice alternative area, with seating and shelter from rain and wind of course, wouldnt treat ye like second class citizens or anything

pretty*monster

Outside the arts block there's already shelter from the rain and wind, and seating in the form of the wall. Also, the wording of the motion as far as I've aware makes do provisions for seating or shelter.

People smoke outside buildings because they've just exited said buildings and are intent on re-entering soon(ish), they're not going to trek over to some designated smoking section unless their forced, and the only one who can force them is the college. So the union would have to go to the college and say 'could you please introduce new dicsiplinary measures', which certainly isn't something I expect from my union.

Also staff smoke outside the buildings too.

And I know the situation might be different in other buildings who do not have the shelter that the arts block has and if they want a smoking section fair enough, all I'm saying is that I'm not moving, and I know a goood few others who aren't either.

Chakar

AngelofFire wrote:

Great that means that the KBC won't be submitting any motions in support of Charles Haughey again.

I was referring to Labour Youth and the socialists from last year as they comprised a significant number of Council last year.

Motions were submitted in the interest of some Council members rather than for the good of the Union such as the motion giving money to Niall Dolan for getting arrested and charged with a public order offence.Also other motions like the Rossport motion.

AngelofFire

Chakar wrote:

I was referring to Labour Youth and the socialists from last year as they comprised a significant number of Council last year.

The Labour Youth members on Council are there in their own capacity and not in a Labour Youth Capacity, contrast that to Fianna Fail who need to go around in their huddies at class rep training and who's members have and still are trying to prevent our union from campaigning for better grants and against third level fees.

singingstranger

Just to put some numeracy on these:

Sexually suggestive images motion (dealt with first), 32-48, defeated.
Sale of cans in bars, almost unanimous (votes against not numerically counted)
Support of Shell2Sea, 26-53, defeated
Support of Food Co-Op, unanimous
Campaign against IBTS rule on blood of gay men, almost unanimous (one vote against)
Motion on Early Irish, almost unanimous (two votes against)
Computer Stickers (as amended during Council) heavily defeated
Campaign for removal of cigarettes split into parts as mentioned above
Student Representation on Programme Boards 47-18
Catering Products unanimous
Motion regarding previous mandates ("Butlerama"), withdrawn.

Stabshauptmann

pretty*monster wrote:

Outside the arts block there's already shelter from the rain and wind, and seating in the form of the wall.

Yes, and I wouldnt ask ye to go somewhere less comfortable. But it is illegal to smoke where ye do, and even though I dont have the best legal track record and I believe a lot of laws stupid and pointless, i agree with the sentiments of this law

Also, the wording of the motion as far as I've aware makes do provisions for seating or shelter.

I felt it was implied, but I cant say why. Common sense probably, which can be a falal assumption

People smoke outside buildings because they've just exited said buildings and are intent on re-entering soon(ish),

I know, it makes sense to smokers, why move if I dont have to?! But I find it disgusting personally walking through a cloud of smoke going in and out of arts.

they're not going to trek over to some designated smoking section unless their forced

Because they're lazy and or selfish.
Bring back smoking in pubs! Ive I want to smoke my filthy fag thats my business prude. Ah its not gonna kill ya...live with it:rolleyes:

and the only one who can force them is the college. So the union would have to go to the college and say 'could you please introduce new dicsiplinary measures', which certainly isn't something I expect from my union.

Actually its my unions saying, the university is not complying with their legal requirements to provide students and staff with a safe and healthy enviroment,please do so. Its exactly what the union should do.

Also staff smoke outside the buildings too.

The motion is about a failing on the colleges part to provide basic minimum standards of health and safty.Its not anti-students.

And I know the situation might be different in other buildings who do not have the shelter that the arts block has and if they want a smoking section fair enough, all I'm saying is that I'm not moving, and I know a goood few others who aren't either.

Exactly, you are ignornant of the law on the matter (evident from this post), you dont care that you are harming other people (selfish). And if there an alternative was offered to you, you wouldnt take it because of a tiny bit of extra effort (lazy).

Dramatics aside, my own personal, honest opinion; Most people dont see there as being any great problem, if it aint broke dont fix it. Even if a designated smoking area was provided most people might not use it because it wouldnt be as convienient and definitly wouldnt be enforced.
But if someone (the union maybe) felt like sueing the university in the morning Ive no doubt they'd succeed.

The current smokingh area is suitable for smokers, but it is in violation of health and safty regulations. It is illegal. Oh noses :eek:

I suppose it boils down to nanny state antics etc

Stabshauptmann

singingstranger wrote:

Just to put some numeracy on these:

Sale of cans in bars, almost unanimous (votes against not numerically counted)

Eh, there were no votes against, wheres the "almost" unanimous bit comming from

Vainglory

Chakar wrote:

I was referring to Labour Youth and the socialists from last year as they comprised a significant number of Council last year.

Motions were submitted in the interest of some Council members rather than for the good of the Union such as the motion giving money to Niall Dolan for getting arrested and charged with a public order offence.Also other motions like the Rossport motion.

There were more members of the KBC on Council than there were of Labour Youth - that is simply a fact.

I also take issue with you saying in a previous post that we forced or pushed through motions..What exactly do you mean by this? Did we hold guns to councillors heads and make them vote with us?

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

There were more members of the KBC on Council than there were of Labour Youth - that is simply a fact.

The KBC don't block vote though. They don't get together before hand and work out how they will vote. Unlike the socialists, who recently admitted that they do. I understand that certain Labour Youth members are part of that cabal (open to correction).

Stabshauptmann

The_Minister wrote:

The KBC don't block vote though. They don't get together before hand and work out how they will vote. Unlike the socialists, who recently admitted that they do. I understand that certain Labour Youth members are part of that cabal (open to correction).

well Im not saying that did or didnt happen, I dont even know the ppl who are members of the respective organisations on campus that well,

But

Wouldnt the ideas behind socialism tend to encourage block voting, collective responsibility for the greater good; while "the right" places more emphasis on individual choice.

*Though Im not labeling these groups on campus or their members as left or right, its just a broad generalised statment on my perception of left and right ideaology.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with or undemocratic about group voting, its just a different way of thinking about it

fish-head

The Passive Smoking Tunnel.. good god it's disgusting.