Drug testing for Society auditors

mloc

What do you think, should society auditors who have to deal with significant amounts of college funds (with, to be honest, no transparency) be tested for drugs?

Red Alert

don't see why not - at least out of curioscity anyway

valor

do sabbats get tested?

ferdi

oh my god...lol :rolleyes:

make the system more transparent rather than invading the privicy of private induviduals maybe?

18AD

Drug tests for those who want them.
No drug tests for those who don't.

Red Alert

The sabatts... why not?

Dontico

sounds like a dumb idea.
why not random drug tests for all students?

humbert

The lack of transparency is a problem but drugs have sod all to do with it.

As if somehow the greatest likelihood of misappropriation of funds comes from auditors supporting their drug habit.

Stepherunie

See you could do it - but how could you prove that they used society money to pay for it, I'm presuming that that's what you're implying with the question considering you mention the large amount of money involved.... Wouldn't work.

elmyra

Isn't this why there's a finance committee who see the accounts? An agm at the end of the year when they have to account for everything? As if drug testing would prove shady dealing...if it's happening it's probably not just among people who are off their biscuit. There's no correlation between being a dodgy auditor and a crack head. If you think there's a lack of transparency then look for transparency in the areas where it's needed maybe with more stringent checks on where money is spent.

Yes, I'd be one of the people who voted no.

mloc

a lot of valid points made, I was just curious more than anything else.

I certainly think SU money should be accounted for down to the last cent, and available for every member (e.g. every student) to view.

Scraggs

mloc wrote:

I certainly think SU money should be accounted for down to the last cent, and available for every member (e.g. every student) to view.

QFT

pretty*monster

Gross invasion on privacy.

And society money is accounted for down to the last cent. Treasures can be spotted this time of year doing the pre-AGM accounts, hauling folders of recipts around with them, totting up how much WhateverSoc spent of sellotape this year. The Society officer can ask to view your accounts at anytime afaik, and they have to be submitted before you recieve your grant.

And anyway, drug testing would cost precious student money.

mloc

pretty*monster wrote:

The Society officer can ask to view your accounts at anytime afaik, and they have to be submitted before you recieve your grant.

Hehe the society's officer, ah now... let's be realistic here, you might as well have Robert Mugabe looking at them.

Sangre

And why don't we randomly search their houses in case they keep some of their ill-gotten booty there?

Its so simple!

pretty*monster

mloc wrote:

Hehe the society's officer, ah now... let's be realistic here, you might as well have Robert Mugabe looking at them.

Em... no, Butler won't be getting my vote for man of the year, but lets not go over board in our condemnation of him. An awful lot of the criticism Butler recieves is for being a hard-ass after all. Fact is that if your accounts don't check out when the finance committee meets there's gonna be trouble.

Also every society has a serious treasurer who is the a signatory on their bank account.

Ok, if you're still suspicious about the accounts of any society you can toddle on down to their AGM and sit though the horrifying boredom that is the treasurers presentation of the accounts.

If you don't think that all this is good enough, by all means suggest ways to improve accountability.
But drug testing, really?

Red Alert

Butler is a self-serving psycophant who is interesting in staying 'in' with the usual suspect societies. He is one of the various cancers on the UCD org chart, and a long-term position as opposed to a year appointment is a problem with the position itself. He will not do anything to upset big socs.

Drug Testing is certainly not out of the question. There's a certain paradox though: the right to lawfully do whatever you want in your spare time vs the ability to do your job being impacted by drug use. This has come up a lot with blogging in the US. Now the problem here is that drug use is illegal, at least the possesion of them prior to and during usage is. How would we treat a sabbat who robbed a bank?

AngelofFire

This thread brings George Orwell's 1984 to mind.

As a society Auditor i say no, im not a drug user but its not the college's business to investigate what substances are in the bodies of their students. Whether are not society auditoris are taking drugs is a matter between them and the law of this land, it is not the business nor the right of the University to screen students for drugs.

Red Alert

So for example should the college employ a known paedophile considering that all students will be over the age of 17 and it won't be their problem? Both are illegal.

Sangre

Its not illegal to 'be' a paedophile.

dajaffa

Red Alert wrote:

So for example should the college employ a known paedophile considering that all students will be over the age of 17 and it won't be their problem? Both are illegal.

The nature of the crimes are so far removed from each other I don't know where to begin, I think everyone knows the seriousness of paedophilia and comapring that to an individual (aka not someone dealing etc) who takes drugs is akin to comparing stealing a bar from a vending machine to manslaughter (I'm assuming you mean a convicted paedophile).

Auditors are unpaid volunteers essentially. They are elected individuals and there are specific mechanisms to remove them, that an auditor takes drugs does not necessarily make them unfit for office. If drugs affect their job then yes remove them, but given the ethical questions surrounding testing employees, I can't see how it could be justified to testing volunteers.

Sangre

What about auditors who occassionally visit their relatives in Amsterdam and partake in some fun, wholesome legal activities?

fatal

who the **** is UCD to drug test anyone when they dont even have the slightest bit of suspicion that he/she is taking drugs?
As long as he/she is doing what he/she is supposed to be doing who cares what they do in their free time?

Dontico

its actually not illegal to take drugs. itsd illegal to be in possesion of drugs. there is a difference.

snickerpuss

Eh no?
Why would it matter? I can't really see any major reason.

Sangre

Red Alert wrote:

So for example should the college employ a known paedophile considering that all students will be over the age of 17 and it won't be their problem? Both are illegal.

You do realise such ridiculous comparison only serve to highlight how weak your arguement is.

I think paedophilia is the new and improved Godwin's law.

Red Alert

I made the point for illustrative purposes. It's neither illegal to be a drug user or paedophile, however gaining possession of the drugs with intent to take them is illegal.

Sangre

Actually, your 'illustrative point' was ridiculouslydeceptive and highlighted nothing.. The comparisons you were making were so far removed as to be laughable. Since when is random drug testings equivalent to employing convicted paedos? An actual, valid comparison would be comparing random blood tests to randomly searching people's houses to find kiddie porn.

Dave!

I really really don't see what drug testing would achieve..... If they're spending SU money, they're spending SU money -- it doesn't make a difference what they're spending it on, does it? (once it's not being spent for SU purposes of course)

Is it okay for someone to buy themselves some new shoes with your money, just not a bit of weed? What's the problem, that they're spending your money or that they're doing something illegal?

As someone mentioned, it needs to be transparent, that's about it.

Het-Field

AngelofFire wrote:

This thread brings George Orwell's 1984 to mind.

As a society Auditor i say no, im not a drug user but its not the college's business to investigate what substances are in the bodies of their students. Whether are not society auditoris are taking drugs is a matter between them and the law of this land, it is not the business nor the right of the University to screen students for drugs.

Although we may run societies which are poles apart. Labour Youth V Young PD'S, I would totally agree with you. It has been discovered that even poppy seeds can cause one to fail a drug test. I doubt drugs are more or less likely to cause one to imbezzle funds

AngelofFire

Red Alert wrote:

So for example should the college employ a known paedophile considering that all students will be over the age of 17 and it won't be their problem? Both are illegal.

No if the Law of the Land is being enforced then the paedophile will be behind bars and therefore not looking for a job in UCD.