SU Sabbatical Elections

Red Alert

Actually pretty*monster, I noticed this too. Over in the eng block the way the building is designed and the demarkation lines the pollers put on it's very easy to get a 'gauntlet' of canvassers. I remember getting hassled a few times last year. Not so this year at all, all hail The_Minister!

I don't mind hot girls canvassing me

dajaffa

delta_bravo wrote:

Yeh he was giving out free drink ( not sure if it was him personally) but his campaigners were, saying vote mallon etc.. Outside the arts block around 11.30. got 3 bottles of alcohol free bavaria beer. I had given him 4th preference at that stage anyway:) Yeah I heard he is going to get into a lot of trouble for this

He has been disqualified by the Chief Returning Officer.

While it is harsh imo it is the only decision that could be made. Penalising him in any other way would set a dangerous precedent for future years.

gubbie

Red Alert wrote:

Actually pretty*monster, I noticed this too. Over in the eng block the way the building is designed and the demarkation lines the pollers put on it's very easy to get a 'gauntlet' of canvassers. I remember getting hassled a few times last year. Not so this year at all, all hail The_Minister!

I don't mind hot girls canvassing me

EXCUSE ME!! *cough* *cough*

I was very polite when I talked to you... like I always am

panda100

pretty*monster wrote:

I found canvassers to be very polite this year.

That is because there are no 'lefts' running.No outsiders to lead people by the hand to the polling booth,shouting and generally being a big pain in the butt.

I didnt vote at all in the end cos I went to the action on suicide rally yesterday and completly forgot to come back and vote . Oooops

Vorsprung

I did happen to be in Belfield yesterday so I did vote in the end! Spoilt them all though

Steibhin

When are the results out?

Real shame there was no debate. This is my first year in UCD and I should have had the opportunity to ask questions to the candidates in a public forum. I wanted to see how each candidate would respond to a particular question. I don't have time to be going around and asking each of them individually. Very poor form by the returning officer. If candidates did not want to turn up and felt their time was best spent canvassing then that was their choice. Their decision to turn up and debate would have been duely noted. Also hustings is a silly word. To be out on the hustings means canvassing for me. Like in a general election. It should be called an election debate. Candidates should be tested on their ability to communicate in a public forum. Lecture address are a bit naff. Candidates have a pre prepared 1min speech that they rattle off at break neck speed without the possibly of being challenged on their points by students. I will be emailing the returning officer to ask which candidates did not want to engage in debate with the student body.

The_Minister

The Results:
President: Colfer
Deputy: Brennan
Education: Shanahan
Welfare: Rath
Ents: Quinliven.

I was disapointed.

elmyra

panda100 wrote:

Yeah I know that Lynam in particular was up for the hustings and Im not suprised cos It really does seperate the weak candidtes from the strong candidates.




Two points to this. Firstly Im not on campus all the time and so dont have the luxury of running around from building to building to find where Barry and Carol anne are canvassing.Its a big campus,they could be anywhere. A confined specific place and time where we can see all the candidates makes a lot more sense.

Secondly, its important to see how candidates react on the spot with a big crowd around them. They will be doing this daily on committees with the college authorities so Its good to see them in a questioning environment that will cause them to think on their feet with people waiting for them to answer.

I know your not a spokesperson for L and H elmyra but If you could shed any light into why the society did not choose to hold hustings this year I would be intrested? Dont L and H usually hold the hustings?

All candidates are inevitably in the one place at the one time in the evening when Arts is the only polling station open- but that's a flippant point. If you were planning to judge them based on hustings then the fact that they wouldn't do it should tell you enough.

I wouldn't presume to speak for the society but I image it didn't happen because our changeover in auditorship left us quite busy with a lot to get sorted out in the past few weeks and tbh, without interested candidates it would have made for a poor show.

I by all means agree with the idea of a hustings, I think you're right about needing to speak in front of a crowd- though to a degree lecture addresses show something of that. I imagine you could learn more from it than just individually speaking to a candidate, but in the absence of it, I still think that no matter how much deferring to Morgan or the L&H is attempted, fault lies with the candidates.

Anyway, the races have been run so apologies for taking so long to reply, was polling and counting. Great fun, roll on exec!

panda100

Steibhin wrote:

Also hustings is a silly word. To be out on the hustings means canvassing for me. Like in a general election. It should be called an election debate. Candidates should be tested on their ability to communicate in a public forum. Lecture address are a bit naff. Candidates have a pre prepared 1min speech that they rattle off at break neck speed without the possibly of being challenged on their points by students. I will be emailing the returning officer to ask which candidates did not want to engage in debate with the student body.

Well said little first year
Election debate sounds a lot better then hustings but some of the old codgers in the union live for these sort of fancy words and rigmarole that turns students of,such as standing order thingys at council etc etc.

Me and Humbert reckon that 'Hustings' sounds like a form of hunting for hacks,which it is sorta.

gliondar

You hit the nail on the head Steibhin!
Well done!

Chakar

Steibhin wrote:

I will be emailing the returning officer to ask which candidates did not want to engage in debate with the student body.

He won't tell you.

gubbie

Steibhin wrote:

I will be emailing the returning officer to ask which candidates did not want to engage in debate with the student body.

PM Dajaffa-she was at the meeting so she'll be able to answer your question

dajaffa

gubbie wrote:

PM Dajaffa-she was at the meeting so she'll be able to answer your question

Well it wasn't asked at any meeting directly, at a meeting for candidates the Returning Officer said if the candidates wanted hustings they could get onto him. Dave Curran wanted hustings, and I think he had spoken to Morgan Shelley which resulted in Morgan emailing candidates asking if they wanted a hustings. Of the 5 that replied (I don't know which 5), only one (Paul Lynam) wanted hustings, the rest didn't.

What I do know is that when Dave Curran got the Union Administrative Officer Shaun Smyth to ring candidates informing them about the hustings he was organising (on which the plug was later pulled by Morgan), Ronan Shanahan rang back very promptly and complained. When Morgan got wind that Dave was organising hustings (presumably a candidate contacted him as it was done swiftly) he had them cancelled. Constitutionally hustings have to be convened by the Returning Officer.

These are all the facts I know about the issue. I didn't want to write them before the polling days as doubtlessly I was biased as Paul Lynam's campaign manager and didn't want to appear to be attacking a candidate in an attempt to influence the election.

On the results front, obviously I am disappointed. I do fear for the short-term future of the SU. Ronan Shanhan seems to be a nice guy from what I know of him, but there is no evidence in my mind proving that he will be a good education officer. I'm not saying he won't, but he was a class rep this year and I didn't have a f'ing clue who he was until I heard his name touted for the post, and for someone as involved as me that is saying something. Around the same time he took a place on the constitutional review group (a group I was on) he came for the last few minutes of one meeting, was given work to do, and never returned...

In the other races, all as I would have expected though I have to say I always have concerns when an ents candidate has their own promotions company. I hope detailed accounts are published in the coming year making it clear that the ents office isn't being abused.

panda100

dajaffa wrote:

only one (Paul Lynam) wanted hustings, the rest didn't..

That really just speaks volumes about the candidates. Lynam really was imho the only one really intrested in education. I am truly gutted for him. I would be very intrested for Shanhan/someone from his campaign team to explain to those who was hassled continuously by his campaigners,why he did not want to attend a debate?

dajaffa wrote:

These are all the facts I know about the issue. I didn't want to write them before the polling days as doubtlessly I was biased as Paul Lynam's campaign manager and didn't want to appear to be attacking a candidate in an attempt to influence the election..

No you were right not to. It would have seemed biased but I think its right to tell us now.

dajaffa wrote:

Ronan Shanhan seems to be a nice guy from what I know of him, but there is no evidence in my mind proving that he will be a good education officer. I'm not saying he won't, but he was a class rep this year and I didn't have a f'ing clue who he was until I heard his name touted for the post, and for someone as involved as me that is saying something. Around the same time he took a place on the constitutional review group (a group I was on) he came for the last few minutes of one meeting, was given work to do, and never returned....

The fact that he wrote he was a member of the constitutinal review group on his manifesto completly turned me off. This isnt exactly the highest union honor and the fact he didnt even attend the meetings is really poor show.

I think it is important to have heared of a candidate within the union in sabattical elctions. It shows that they have an intrest in the union,are involved and arent just running for to put something on their cv.

I guess its up to Ronan now to prove us all wrong

The_Minister

panda100 wrote:

That really just speaks aeons about the candidates.

Ah Panda. Panda Panda Panda. I'll see you in a yard's time then?

Foxtrol

As a part of Ronan's campaign team im not going to lower the well natured tone in which the election was run by bad mouthing an opponent after the results have been announced but Id like to put a few things straight.

Firstly: anyone who knows Ronan will tell you that he will put his heart and soul into his job as education officer next year and I have no doubt he will do an amazing job. If by this time next year he hasn’t done a good job I’ll put my hands up but people jumping to conclusions about the job he’ll do without meeting or knowing anything about him is down right wrong.

Secondly: Just because you didn’t ‘have a f'ing clue who he was’ doesn’t have any bearing on what kind of class rep he was this year or what kind of sabbat he’s going to be next year. As class rep he may not have set up camp down on the corridor but if you ask anyone from his class you’ll find how positively they speak of him and the way he dealt with their issues this year. This positive feeling can be clearly seen from the massive support he got from home constituency in roebuck (when other candidates didn’t get anywhere near the level of turnout or support from the students who elected them to their class rep/Programmes Officer positions)

Thirdly: What is your source that Ronan was complaining about hustings and more to the point what was the nature of this complaint, was it that he flat out didn’t want to do it or was it more down to the timing? He had no problem getting involved and speaking at the LGBT hustings during rainbow week coming across very well so I very doubt the fact that he didn’t want to get involved in another hustings.

Finally: In regards the constitutional review group meetings, Ronan missed these due to a very bad illness which nearly caused him to drop out of the education race altogether. Dan was informed in advance that Ronan wouldn’t be attending these meetings.

gubbie

Foxtrol wrote:

If by this time next year he hasn’t done a good job I’ll put my hands up

Instead of just putting your hands up will you join us in telling us he (potentially) is doing a ****e job? It just doesn't help to put your hands up and go oops maybe he was the bad choice... its just hypothetically speaking of course.

Foxtrol wrote:

As class rep he may not have set up camp down on the corridor but if you ask anyone from his class you’ll find how positively they speak of him and the way he dealt with their issues this year. This positive feeling can be clearly seen from the massive support he got from home constituency in roebuck (when other candidates didn’t get anywhere near the level of turnout or support from the students who elected them to their class rep/Programmes Officer positions)

What did he do?

dajaffa

Foxtrol wrote:

As a part of Ronan's campaign team im not going to lower the well natured tone in which the election was run by bad mouthing an opponent after the results have been announced but Id like to put a few things straight.

Firstly: anyone who knows Ronan will tell you that he will put his heart and soul into his job as education officer next year and I have no doubt he will do an amazing job. If by this time next year he hasn’t done a good job I’ll put my hands up but people jumping to conclusions about the job he’ll do without meeting or knowing anything about him is down right wrong.

Secondly: Just because you didn’t ‘have a f'ing clue who he was’ doesn’t have any bearing on what kind of class rep he was this year or what kind of sabbat he’s going to be next year. As class rep he may not have set up camp down on the corridor but if you ask anyone from his class you’ll find how positively they speak of him and the way he dealt with their issues this year. This positive feeling can be clearly seen from the massive support he got from home constituency in roebuck (when other candidates didn’t get anywhere near the level of turnout or support from the students who elected them to their class rep/Programmes Officer positions)

Thirdly: What is your source that Ronan was complaining about hustings and more to the point what was the nature of this complaint, was it that he flat out didn’t want to do it or was it more down to the timing? He had no problem getting involved and speaking at the LGBT hustings during rainbow week coming across very well so I very doubt the fact that he didn’t want to get involved in another hustings.

Finally: In regards the constitutional review group meetings, Ronan missed these due to a very bad illness which nearly caused him to drop out of the education race altogether. Dan was informed in advance that Ronan wouldn’t be attending these meetings.

1. Trust me I hope he does, I really REALLY do

2. Being a class rep and being Education Officer are two very very different things. I'm not saying he had to live on the corridor, but I never came accross him at any SU campaign, education working group or generally at council. The position entails a huge amount of meetings, boards being sit on etc, so experience of the SU and the workings of some of the boards etc is more important than the other sabbatical positions. As for the support from home constituencies, historically Arts don't get behind candidates from their own faculty compared to other faculties. It isn't a reflection on the candidate themselves.

3. Myself actually. His response was along the lines of "even though Morgan said there wasn't one" etc. I can't say whether he would have gone had they taken place, but it was pretty clear that he wasn't pushing for them to take place.

4. I'll take your word for it and accept that as the truth. I take issue not with the fact that he didn't go, but that he still went ahead and put it in his manifesto.



EDIT: The only reason I was posting on this thread was that people were wondering why there were no hustings etc + I felt that I was in a good position to tell them post elections. I held off until after the elections were done and posted the stuff I knew. It isn't intended as an attack on Ronan, or me saying that he'll be rubbish, I'm saying I know nothing of experience he has, and this leaves me worrying that he won't be a good education officer. I've said it before, imo it is the sabbatical job where it is most important to have experience in the SU, on programme boards, Academic Council etc. The other candidates had a lot more experience than him, so I would feel more confident about the job that either of them could potentially do next year

Steibhin

panda100 wrote:

Well said little first year
Election debate sounds a lot better then hustings but some of the old codgers in the union live for these sort of fancy words and rigmarole that turns students of,such as standing order thingys at council etc etc.

Thanks. I'm a postgrad though (NUI, Galway in a previous life). A Fresher of sorts I guess.

A Standing Order is what you use to pay your rent. How can young people have
attachment to such archaic terms? Might as well start talking about 'Ye olde Students Union Bookshope' and bring back laws preventing Jewish people from owning more than one horse saddle.

Must actually get around to emailing Morgan Shelly. My indignation seems to have dampened somewhat over the weekend..

pretty*monster

Hustings is a real word in real English and if you have a problem with it you should get on to the OED.

And since it was brought up, standing orders in council are necessery to standardise how council runs, all you need is a copy of the standing orders in fromt of you for your first few councils to pick them up. Yes they can be difficult at first, but so are many things in life, thankfully we are intelligent human beings capable of learning new things.

Foxtrol

gubbie if you read the line before the one you quoted you'll see my opinion:

'I have no doubt he will do an amazing job'

That is my opinion. but what i was saying is if somehow by next year im wrong (which Id bet my house i wont be) then i'll hold my hands up and say it to him and others that he’s done a bad job! But i firmly believe everyone should at least give him a day in the job before they jump to conclusions. Just remember back when the names of the candidates where announced, no one gave Ronan a chance as a class rep versus a PRO but he managed to pull off a very substantial victory. Also if you want to know what he's done for his class take the time to ask one of them, as during the campaign i had the pleasure of meeting many of them and none had a bad word to say about him only positives and that’s why they took time out of their lives to help him.

dajaffa i also really hope i can take your word that you do wish Ronan the best and that the post that you put up would have still been put up if you had been successful in your campaign and that this isnt the first salvo in a campaign against Ronan just because he isnt known in the union clique like paul is and that people are actually going to give him a chance do a great job.

If anyone really wants to know of his experience and plans take the time and talk to him (which he will be more than willing to do) and to the people who know him rather then questioning him on boards (which i can tell you now he doesnt read). Look to be honest i have my own opinions on paul from my own and others experiences with and why i believe that Ronan will do a better job next year. However i honestly dont believe that this is the place for me to question someone when i dont have enough personal contact with him to place these opinions in such a public arena and i strongly feel the same respect should be given to ronan by people who've had little or no contact with him.

Blush_01

Foxtrol, you can bet that what dajaffa said was said after (rather than before) the elections because she didn't want to have what she is saying seen as sour grapes. A lesser person would have anonymously posted what she has said before polling began - surely someone as smart as yourself can see that?

As for Paul Lynam - regardless of whether you like the guy or not, whether he is likable was not the issue. The issue was whether he could do the job well or not, whether he had experience to show that he was capable of dealing with issues of the ilk facing the Education Officer of the UCDSU and whether his priority was the student population or not. The exact same can be said of John Regan.

For bejaysus sake lads, we're giving these people paid positions to work for the student body. It's not a campus-wide version of "Hot'r'Not" limited to the people who put themselves forward. I just hope that the new Union will be able to cope adequately with the challenges of a general election year, as there's no balance in the new Union at all.

gubbie

Foxtrol wrote:

in a campaign against Ronan just because he isnt known in the union clique like paul is and that people are actually going to give him a chance do a great job.

Firstly I wouldn't consider Paul to be part of the clique down in the corridor and I think it stands to Ronan to not be part of the clique as it encourages oompa loompas to bum around the corridor distracting everyone! Its one reason why the union feels so unwelcoming now a days

And sorry for questioning him here (though you did do a great job of avoiding the question cos you don't really know what he did maybe) but I really don't have the time to be sauntering around looking for him just to ask him something like that. As Panda said like before!

I'll give Ronan a try. I'm basing my opinion on the job that he'll do on what little contact (of course not either of our faults, he's a pleasant guy) and the great laugh that his manifesto gave me (I've never noticed mistakes in manifestos but...)

I look forward to working with him next year on sorting out my degree.

And I can't wait for the return of Niall Dolan to council... see what Ronan Shanahan makes of him!

Steibhin

pretty*monster wrote:

Hustings is a real word in real English and if you have a problem with it you should get on to the OED.

No one is doubting whether it is a real word or not. The debate is whether it is the best word to use when describing a debate between two candidates.

We could call it paintballing. Which is also a real word. Would be a pretty stupid word to use though. Like hustings.

hullaballoo

What a silly thread this has become. I don't see the relevance of whether a turn of phrase is acceptable in a given context or not to the SU Sabbatical Elections. Do you?

I'm not even sure why this thread is still alive, there's another thread discussing the results open. Considering most of you are aware of my personal dislike for discussing SU stuff here, when there's an SU forum elsewhere, you're treading on thin ice.

Blush_01

Well to be honest Hulla, this is the UCD board. For UCD students. Obviously some UCD students want this board to represent their opinions on things... obviously some UCD students don't give a toss about it being a general UCD board where everything should be open for discussion.

It's not like someone is beboing you about it, is it. Now THAT would be out of line. I wonder who would do a thing like that?

Chakar

Blush_01 wrote:

It's not like someone is beboing you about it, is it. Now THAT would be out of line. I wonder who would do a thing like that?

Not me thats for sure

Steibhin

hullaballoo wrote:

What a silly thread this has become. I don't see the relevance of whether a turn of phrase is acceptable in a given context or not to the SU Sabbatical Elections. Do you?

Well the phrase is directly relevant the SU elections. Or at least it would have been had the a debate/hustings gone ahead - which should be the focus rather than the terminology which was mentioned as an aside.

But you are right - This has gone off topic, but 14 pages into a thread what do you expect?

hullaballoo

Blush_01 wrote:

Well to be honest Hulla, this is the UCD board. For UCD students. Obviously some UCD students want this board to represent their opinions on things... obviously some UCD students don't give a toss about it being a general UCD board where everything should be open for discussion.

It's not like someone is beboing you about it, is it. Now THAT would be out of line. I wonder who would do a thing like that?

Yeah, but you realise that the crux of my post was that I think this thread has gone horrendously off topic. Beyond that, then, there's the issue of the fact that the nature of SU threads on this forum is to go off topic or become a flame war. That just serves to compound my distain for SU threads on this forum.

I'm not getting rid of SU discussion any time soon. We seem to have resolved the issue of undeclared affiliations. Further, things have been running smoothly thus far, or at least, until this thread became a debate on semantics that has a proper place over in the Linguistics forum. But not here.

inverted_world

Steibhin wrote:

No one is doubting whether it is a real word or not. The debate is whether it is the best word to use when describing a debate between two candidates.

We could call it paintballing. Which is also a real word. Would be a pretty stupid word to use though. Like hustings.

Yes, it is the best word. Because thet's exactly what it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustings