SU Council Motions, Mon 27th November 2006

panda100

cast_iron wrote:

I don't quite see how asking why a motion was withdrawn constitutes being called a d*ck.
Especially when the proposer was apparently serious about it, then claimed it was joke, then withdrew it but said it was serious.

That's a little confusing, and seems quite hypocritical if you ask me.

Cast Iron is raising some intresting points on these motions,we can listen to him without resorting to name calling.


Happycrackhead:) Stop trying to be the new Conor J Mc Gowan. You are a nice guy and the arrogance thing seems forced and unnatural from you. With Conor J his ego and arrogance was an innate reaction nourished by all his years as a blackrockian.Also I dont think the unions ready for another 'j' quite yet.

pretty*monster

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

If kate has a problem with my tone Im sure A)She could say so her self and She might rethink her own tone in posts both here and posts on the newswire.

:eek:

I didn't have the slightest problem with the post in question.

This post however...

pretty*monster

cast_iron wrote:

I
Especially when the proposer was apparently serious about it, then claimed it was joke, then withdrew it but said it was serious.

That's a little confusing, and seems quite hypocritical if you ask me.

What evidence do you have that he was in any way serious about it?

The_Minister

pretty*monster wrote:

What evidence do you have that he was in any way serious about it?

/Wanders in
Because he may have canvassed certain class reps
/wanders out

cast_iron

pretty*monster wrote:

What evidence do you have that he was in any way serious about it?

He said so:

Happycrackhead wrote:

When i suggested the proposition of this motion before council it was well recieved among my peers. They were happy enough with it... I wouldn't call it a joke motion... coz it would have been funny in that case.

Vainglory

Blush_01 wrote:

Charlie "Whatshisface" was deliberate. I could not remember his name (because he's obviously so relevant to me, an ordinary member of the student population) and it was a device to illustrate that fact. Rather than being disrespectful of the man's memory (since he's so well remembered as is) it poked fun at the anally retentive manner in which his already lacking memory is being mandated to be celebrated by people who appear to have very little else to do than find politically driven nonsense to "entertain" reps at council with. I can't imagine the majority of UCD students would be in favour of a large amount of SU funds being contributed to remembering a guy who they feel totally and irreconcilably distanced from, or who they don't know existed. Had he been a UCD student when he died, he'd be covered under the other proposed monument to students who died while attending UCD. Instead he dropped out to pursue his political beliefs - fair play, but why should we care, really - and then died in battle. Unfortunate, but what does that have to do with us?

If that makes me disrespectful of the dead (and I can't see how it does) then so be it. The guy meant nothing to me, I mean him and his memory no ill will, but I also don't see why we should finance a memorial to him, and not do the same for the thousands of other ex-UCD students who have died in the past century. Would you consider that to be a realistic or even vaguely intelligent idea? I doubt so. But then again, maybe I'm not respecting your capacity to be an idealist either.

As if you couldn't have just pressed the "back" button on your browser and checked. But nah, it was probably funnier or cooler or some rubbish like that to say "Whatshisface".

I'm sick of being accused of being involved in "politically driven nonsense" every time I exercise my right to bring something to Council. He's just someone I admire, same way those nationalists way back when admired Kevin Barry and got a stained glass window named after him - but of course, nobody would accuse them of the same sort of crimes. Tell your rep to vote against it then.

Eh...I think I'm pretty much done with this place, actually.

The_Minister

I polled my class on three motions, no time for others
1) Bebo motion - yes
2) Trap refurbishment - yes
3) Memorial for guy - no (no-one knew his name)

cast_iron

The_Minister wrote:

3) Memorial for guy - no (no-one knew his name)

And quite simply, that really is the long and short of that motion.

Stabshauptmann

pretty*monster wrote:

:eek:

I didn't have the slightest problem with the post in question.

This post however...

You know I love ya
*hugs and kisses*

panda100

Vainglory wrote:

He's just someone I admire, same way those nationalists way back when admired Kevin Barry and got a stained glass window named after him - but of course, nobody would accuse them of the same sort of crimes.

.

Just on the Kevin Barry window......I asked around today and found out that it was commisioned for and paid for by medical students here in UCD to commemerate the death of one of their peers in medicine.

HappyCrackHead

cast_iron wrote:

A UCD student and Myself.


The fact that you actually thought it was a viable motion. And then thought you could pawn it off as a joke motion. Like Kaptain, I don't for 1 second believe it was meant as a joke.

Well you're beliefs are your own and I am not one to dis anyone's beliefs particularly ones so strongly held.

cast_iron wrote:

Also, the fact that you seem to imply that people who criticised the motion are somehow against "the betterment of students in UCD." (I quote you here again). Wow.

Wow... you don't get sarcasm. Read the damn motion and imagine like you have a sense of humour, sir.

cast_iron wrote:

I don't doubt that SU people put alot of work into what they do - just as people in Sports Clubs. But the fact is that you thought you should make it a matter of policy that you should, in effect, be "paid" for the work you do.

You do it because you want to do it, and you know it's voluntary work. No one forces you to do it. To think that you expect the students to pay you for this shows that you have lost sight of the reason you are there and what your position is actually about. Just in case you've forgotten - you're a class rep in university - that's it.

I have no delusions of grandeur.

cast_iron wrote:

HappyCrackHead wrote:

*Edit: I was kindly asked by a fellow councillor to withdraw the motion today (tuesday). .

Em, that's not a reason.
If a fellow councillor kindly asked you to withdraw your other motion, I doubt you would without a valid reason.
Again, I ask you, why did you withdraw it?

My fellow councillor informed me that not everyone has a sense of humour and that irony was lost on many people and proposing motions before council to highlight the hypocracy of some people on it was not the best idea. Plus that it might lose me support for my genuine motion.

The fact of the matter is i giggled while drafting that motion.

If that doesnt say joke to you... nothing does.

Blush_01

Vainglory wrote:

As if you couldn't have just pressed the "back" button on your browser and checked. But nah, it was probably funnier or cooler or some rubbish like that to say "Whatshisface".

I'm sick of being accused of being involved in "politically driven nonsense" every time I exercise my right to bring something to Council. He's just someone I admire, same way those nationalists way back when admired Kevin Barry and got a stained glass window named after him - but of course, nobody would accuse them of the same sort of crimes. Tell your rep to vote against it then.

Eh...I think I'm pretty much done with this place, actually.

I'm going to leave some planks and a tool belt at services. Build a bridge and get over yourself.

cast_iron

HappyCrackHead wrote:

The fact of the matter is i giggled while drafting that motion.

If that doesnt say joke to you... nothing does.

I don't quite know why, but I find that hard to believe:

Stepherunie wrote:

Having spoken to Kev about it before he was fairly serious about his motion

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Kev, I dont believe for a minuite that it was a joke.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

When i suggested the proposition of this motion before council it was well recieved among my peers. They were happy enough with it... I wouldn't call it a joke motion... coz it would have been funny in that case.

But in fact, I can't disprove what you claim, and since you believe your own BullSh*t, argueing any further would be fruitless.

pretty*monster

Not that my word counts for a lot but I was sitting next to Kev when dreamed up the fabulous wrote this motion. It was clearly a joke. Not one I personally found particularly funny but certainly the motion wasn't meant with any kind of seriousness.

Blowfish

Vainglory wrote:

He's just someone I admire,

But that's exactly whats wrong with it, he's someone you admire, where as most of the student body haven't even heard of him. If it was someone whom everyone admired, there wouldn't be a problem at all.

singingstranger

There are a few amendments now on notice...

Elisa has put in an amendment to her motion on healthy bodily image, which although pretty substantial, doesn't (in her opinion) take away or change the fundamental aim of the motion. Pending the consent of Chair of Council the motion will now appear in this form:

Council notes that body hatred, lack of self-esteem and the rise of eating disorders in the nation's youth are alarming national problems. While there are many factors that instill a poor body image one of the main changeable factors is the continued use of unrealistic role models in advertising and the media today. Poor self esteem in how you look can lead to many serious illnesses such as anorexia, bullimia, binge eating and depression. In recent Union publications it is acknowledged that the Union has done outstanding work in using real students to advertise their events. However there are still discrepancies where the Union are using sterotypical beautiful men and women wearing little to advertise events. It is also noted that a students time at university is a time of not just academic but personal growth where men and women learn more about themselves and can learn to love the body they are in.


Therefore Council propose that to the best of their abilities and recources the Union uses all shapes and sizes of men and women's bodies in their publications and in advertising events.If they feel that certain figures used in advertising an event may create a poor body image among students then alternate media images must be used. Council also mandates that the Welfare Office runs a positive body image campaign campuswide to promote a happy and healthy body image for all students.

Also, Kev has submitted some amendments to his motion:

ucdsu.net wrote:

Following the line "Council notes that the students of UCD are looking to their Student's Union for action on this issue.", the following line will be added -

"Council acknowledges the work done so far by union officers and class reps on this issue."


The following line will be removed - "Council mandates the President, Deputy President, Welfare and Education Officers to organise this campaign, culminating in a protest in early Semester 2." - and will be replaced by -

"Council calls for a committee to be set up organise this campaign, culminating in a protest in early Semester 2"


Thus, the motion will hereby read;

"Council notes the intractable nature of the University administration in particular degree weighting and other changes to curricula as well as the manner in which changes have been executed.

Council notes with concern that the anger among the student population who have only recently been informed of this change.

Council notes that the students of UCD are looking to their Student's Union for action on this issue.

Council acknowledges the work done so far by union officers and class reps on this issue.

Council notes with great concern the detrimental affect these changes will have on student, sport and society life and general student morale.

Council notes that currently for this years second arts students 30% of their overall degree weighting comes from their top six modules.

Council notes that this change applies to this academic year only.

Council believes that it is does not go far enough, nor does it relieve the academic pressure from future second years which will be subject to the 50% degree weighting in penultimate year.

Council therefore demands that this system of benificial aggregation be applied for all subsequent years.

Council notes that changes to degree weighting do not only affect Arts students but those from other colleges and schools.

Council calls for a University wide protest to organise the student body to complain about these changes and put pressure on the University to be more malleable on the issue.

Council calls for a committee to be set up organise this campaign, culminating in a protest in early Semester 2."

panda100

singingstranger wrote:

There are a few amendments now on notice...

Elisa has put in an amendment to her motion on healthy bodily image, which although pretty substantial, doesn't (in her opinion) take away or change the fundamental aim of the motion. Pending the consent of Chair of Council the motion will now appear in this form:

The aim of the first motion was to create a positive body image in students around campus and the aim of this motion is the same. The major thing that has changed is instead of banning certain body types this motion is encouraging the union to use more diiferent types of figures from now on

As regards the campaign by the welfare office I have been in touch with Dove Ireland and there going to help us to help students feel better about the way the look. While It may seem a real insignificant problem its really not,especially within the female population of UCD and its something that has been never done on campus before and I feel it needs to be done.

Also I changed the layout of the motion as I hate all that 'council notes', 'council expresses' malarky

Stabshauptmann

Id like to amends John Butlers Corrib Gas line motion, what it needs is the ability to be taken in parts so that depending on which bits are passed we'll have a definitive answer to
A)What degree of support should the union offer to the Shell2Sea campaign
B)What form should this support take.

Paddys proposed Amendment wrote:

"Council notes that when UCDSU takes a stance on an issue that it is speaking for the entire 22,000 strong membership.

Council reaffirms its belief that the Student Union movement can be a vital organ of social change but believes that the drivers of such change must come from a broad base of member interest and support.

Council wishes to remove the motion from September 2005 “criticising Shell gas pipeline and calling for release of Rossport Five” as it has become outdated.

Council notes however that the Corrib gas line is a topical issue and that many students in UCD are actively campaigning on the subject.

Council further notes a tribune survey that found 86% of students know little or nothing about the Corrib gas line or the issues surrounding it.

Council therefore mandates the Deputy President to organise an educational seminar on the Rossport issue, with representatives from all sides of the debate.

Council notes that there is some disagreement over the interpretation of “moral support” of the recent Tribune poll on the issue of the Corrib gas line.

Council notes with concern the ambiguity surrounding the union’s position on the Rossport issue.

Council notes that the “Shell to Sea” campaign is a national campaign and a separate entity to the union.

Council states categorically that the union not be linked to the shell to sea campaign.

Council states categorically and definitively that no union money be made available to the Shell to Sea campaign.

Council states categorically and definitively that no resources be given to, or be at the disposal of the Shell to Sea campaign.

While council chooses not to be part of the Shell to Sea campaign as it has become marred by violence and unlawfulness, council wishes to offer moral support to the people of the Erris Peninsula.

Council mandates the Deputy President to establish an “Eriss Solidarity” campaign, to publicise the issue and, if the Deputy President finds there to be sufficient interest, to demonstrate in an exclusively peaceful and lawful way.

Furthermore Council mandates the Union President to do his utmost to
seek possession of all UCDSU banners, and to only release them for use
for official union activities.

The banner should only be displayed at
demonstrations that Council has approved, or in urgent cases where
Union Executive has given its approval."

Cuts out the petty party bullsh*t too

Stabshauptmann

but its a long ass motion worthy of an entire council in itself and I wouldnt inflict it on anyone this side of Xmas

cast_iron

panda100 wrote:

The aim of the first motion was to create a positive body image in students around campus and the aim of this motion is the same. The major thing that has changed is instead of banning certain body types this motion is encouraging the union to use more diiferent types of figures from now on

That seems fair enough.

panda100 wrote:

Also I changed the layout of the motion as I hate all that 'council notes', 'council expresses' malarky

Malarky, it may well be - but I hate reading long paragraphs like above.

Stabshauptmann

panda100 wrote:

Also I changed the layout of the motion as I hate all that 'council notes', 'council expresses' malarky

But that malarkey is the only way we can take a motion in parts.

panda100

cast_iron wrote:

Malarky, it may well be - but I hate reading long paragraphs like above.

I thought it would make people actually read the full motion rather then just skimming through it.

elmyra

panda100 wrote:

As regards the campaign by the welfare office I have been in touch with Dove Ireland and there going to help us to help students feel better about the way the look.

Deadly. Well done. I figured they might be interested.

By the way I did PM you back but I just noticed that it's not showing up in my sent items so if you didn't get it give me a shout, I'll try again.

Chakar

panda100 wrote:

Also I changed the layout of the motion as I hate all that 'council notes', 'council expresses' malarky

Elisa I must stress this is the good practice for bringing motions before Council.

All motions are written like this I would appreciate it if you would do this as would everyone.

It is also important for structure and for taking motions apart.

dajaffa

Chakar wrote:

All motions are written like this I would appreciate it if you would do this as would everyone.

Here you can't really speak for EVERYONE now, that's what they call a dictatorship.

Wording it that way is simpler to read + to be honest unless a motion is very long, it wouldn't be hard to take in parts, though I can't see there being a reason for that in this motion.

Personally I think (+ my future motions may be in this format) they should be:


"Council notes the following:

- Point A

- Point B"

Etc, long motions are made very difficult to read with phrases like "Council notes" and "Council further notes" all over the shop.

Chakar

dajaffa wrote:

Here you can't really speak for EVERYONE now, that's what they call a dictatorship.

Yeah I suppose but its the done thing.

It does make it easier to read and all motions are written like it now anyway

Het-Field

God, Council has gone a bit ridiculous since my day

gubbie

Het-Field wrote:

God, Council has gone a bit ridiculous since my day

It actually hasn't. If anything council was more ridiculous in your day. Michael's a good man and he's able to keep a good council going very efficiently. And there aren't as many hecklers. Like Pierce is the only single person to do so. No Conor, no Niall, no Darren. Their voices have been replaced with not so Aargh voices.

Its nice-you should pop along

Edit to say-I've never dreaded a council. That was til now

dajaffa

Chakar wrote:

It does make it easier to read and all motions are written like it now anyway

I really don't see how Council notes being at the front of every line makes it easier to read. Anyway, different strokes...

Het-Field wrote:

God, Council has gone a bit ridiculous since my day

You're always welcome back

cast_iron

Personally, I think it's bad order that someone decides to disregard the "traditional" way of doing things just because they don't like it.

If that's how it has been done for years, then I think you should respect the tradition and show a little maturity on the issue.

In all parliments, councils, etc., there are ways that things have been done purely by tradition (and some by rule).