Drug testing for Society auditors

Stabshauptmann

snuffles84 wrote:

surely the elected officers should not be seen to condone let alone themselves consume illegal substances of any kind.

Elected officers should represent the people who elected them, whatever those views may be.

the same goes for auditors [should be at the forefront of campaigning for an end to the soft drug culture in our univeristy and society].

No, the auditor of say, a debating society should organise debates, dramasoc should put on plays and workshops, the captain of a sport club should organise training and matches etc

these people are in positions of responsibility and should be beyond reproach.

I dont think auditors should be beyond reproach. I think they should do their job and obey the rules.

Blush_01

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

You seem to be implying that there are auditors embezzling money, what makes you think that? Any particular society pop into your head when you made that post?

Hehehe... I was thinking the exact same thing. (And I know which auditor I was thinking of. Are we all on the same line, if not page?)

mloc

Blush_01 wrote:

Hehehe... I was thinking the exact same thing. (And I know which auditor I was thinking of. Are we all on the same line, if not page?)

I know several auditors of different societies (some large, some not so large) and I would honestly say I don't think any of them would imbezzle money or use the society funds inappropriately.

I was, and I must admit I am somewhat surprised by certain responses, generally curious as to the opinions of others.

In my own personal opinion, I don't think the personal habits of an individual (in general, not restricting to college auditors) should be questioned once they do not negatively influence the performance of the individual in that position.

Stabshauptmann

then why start the thread?

mloc

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

then why start the thread?

This is a discussion forum, isn't it? Surely people can discuss these things with an open mind whatever their personal opinion is on the issue.

Sangre

So you're honestly proposing that we subject voluntary student participants to a draconian measure that no government official is subjected to?

Stabshauptmann

mloc wrote:

This is a discussion forum, isn't it? Surely people can discuss these things with an open mind whatever their personal opinion is on the issue.

You didnt actually answer the question. Yes anyone can start a discussion for any reason, and Im curious what your motivation was.

I have never heard anybody suggest anything like this before, so Im just curious where you got the idea from.

Dontico

what would be the point of making the SU look like they are anti-soft "drugs"? it is already illegal on campus. other than providing education on the subject they cant do more. which they do already. students taking soft "drugs", is no more important, infact i would say far less important, than safe driving.

Scraggs

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

You didnt actually answer the question. Yes anyone can start a discussion for any reason, and Im curious what your motivation was.

I have never heard anybody suggest anything like this before, so Im just curious where you got the idea from.

I know I immediately thought of a certain auditor who is currently being investigated by the societies council [iirc] for misuse of funds. I'm not saying thats what the OP had in mind but its what I instantly thought of when I saw this thread. ....But of course like everything important this is all being kept hush hush so the voters don't hear about it. Bah.

elmyra

Hehe, yep, I guess we've all heard the same rumour.

Remember that time that guy had posters put up all over campus cos some other guy owed him €50? (I know the names, but it wouldn't do to say). Maybe all of us who know the rumour should put up some anonymous posters...teehee.

Yes, the devil does live inside me.

Chakar

elmyra wrote:

Hehe, yep, I guess we've all heard the same rumour.

Remember that time that guy had posters put up all over campus cos some other guy owed him €50? (I know the names, but it wouldn't do to say). Maybe all of us who know the rumour should put up some anonymous posters...teehee.

Yes, the devil does live inside me.

Yeah he still hasn't been paid. The guy is really annoyed to say the least.

pretty*monster

Scraggs wrote:

I know I immediately thought of a certain auditor who is currently being investigated by the societies council [iirc] for misuse of funds.

Well, I haven't heard about this but the fact that the certain auditor is being investigated by the societies counicil should suggest that there is some measure of accountability as regards the use of socity funds (which I already knew, but, dunno, maybe it'll convince others).

Red Alert

Veolia (the LUAS operator) randomly test drug test all employee's - that 'real world' enough?

humbert

Red Alert wrote:

Veolia (the LUAS operator) randomly test drug test all employee's - that 'real world' enough?

Yet they've still managed to crash them shockingly often. Can this mean drug testing doesn't solve all problems!

Ideally a person in a position of responsibility would be free of all vices that might cause them to act inappropriately, drug use being just one of them. However invasively investigating what is the private lives of a group of volunteers is much to high a price to exclude one such vice, and that's assuming you don't condone drug use in the first place, which many students do.

I'll say it again, the problem is the lack of rigorous accountability in the financial affairs of societies. If this was addressed what the individual does in their private lives would cease to be of importance.

Sangre

Red Alert wrote:

Veolia (the LUAS operator) randomly test drug test all employee's - that 'real world' enough?

Thats because they operate large trams full of people in a heavy poplulated urban area. There is actually a link between the abiltiy to operate these and drugs. However, I wholly fail to see the link between embezzling money and recreational drug use.

boneless

Sangre wrote:

So you're honestly proposing that we subject voluntary student participants to a draconian measure that no government official is subjected to?

Now there's a thought.

gliondar

I would like to address the underlying concern that it is possible for
auditors to embezzle money and get away with it.

The auditing of society accounts is far from rigorous. The whole
process is more a formality than anything else. There is not enough
time or effort put into assessing the validity of accounts. Society
accounts are anything from 5 to 15 pages long. To assess each society
adequately would require collecting all the receipts and doing a full
'audit'. But many society grant applications are only looked at for no
more than maybe 7 or 8 minutes, sometimes less, which for normal
humans is insufficient to come to a well-informed decision. There is
also a huge amount of detail on these accounts too. Butler examines
these before the meeting himself so that he can find fault with
society grant applications from people he doesn't like and then rushes
the big ones through. There is no transparency from 'nightclub events'
societies accounts. The amount of loose cash that floats about from
nightclub events is substantial and completely unaccountable since
nobody knows how many people actually pay for tickets at any event.
Who needs to get a check signed when they have 8 grand in cash from
Wednesday from which they can declare as much or as little as they
like into their accounts?

Members of the finance committee are told at the first meeting they
are not allowed discuss what actually happens in the meetings.

Accounts and grants should be published. Why is this not compulsory
anyway? All it does is cause ignorance. Some people estimate that
societies are given anything between 100 to 100,000 euro! It is for
this reason that people assume that auditors must be salting it away
somewhere or blowing it on drugs because they have no idea how much
these societies have. Which, except for maybe the 4 largest, is
negligible.

aequinoctium

where's the trust?

surely the society members would have considered this as an issue when electing the auditor!!!!

Stabshauptmann

The detail checking of accounts is supposed to be done by the senior treasurer, a member of staff.

Honestly I dont know why people think there is a bias towards the large societies, given how much a certain large society auditor demonises Butler, another large society was put on probation and another large society had to redo their accounts. A fourth large society has actually been cursing his name after what they see as a major "dig". Thats 4 out of 7 large societies feel hard done by him this year.

gliondar

Many senior treasurers are just figureheads and are totally indifferent to the society they are supposed to be in charge of.

But that still doesn't answer why there is such intense secrecy about grants and the finance committee.

We have a right to know where our money is being spent, especially when this money is being handed to other students.

Other colleges publish their accounts, why don't we.

This is the first step in making student life in UCD better. Lets get the basics right; accountability and openness. Not some club where only a couple of self-interested uber-hacks have any say or idea about what's happening on campus.

the evil lime

The acounts are made public at the AGMs for anyone who cares to know what they contain.

How are the acounts published in other colleges?

gliondar

In Trinity, the grants are published in the Student Newspapers along with accurate membership figures. Seems a reasonable request surely?

GusherING

I think gliondar raises some valid points. No harm with what he's proposing. Kaptain Redeye paints a bit of a rosy picture with the Senior Treasurer, which in my experience, is a check on the system which is seldom used.

Stabshauptmann

If you want to believe I paint a rosy picture, fine. Im both a society auditor and on the finance committee and I know how my senior treasurer operates and I know how many grant applications have been returned to the society due to "lack of detail/clarity" in the accounts.

Of all the societies Ive been involved with, the senior treasurer has been quite involved. My own treasurer asks for pro forma invoices before they'll sign any cheques.

Now there are over 100 societies in UCD, and Im guessing about 50 sports clubs, so Im sure there are exceptions, but I dont think turning a blind eye is the norm.

Yes I do believe some societies have a money leak. Personally I think its a shame. But at least I dont think its a large leak, most societies cant afford to leak much money. Take a large debating soc for example, even though they have huge amounts of money, most of their expenses are routine and large. Guest speakers, posters, the ball. After that theres really not a lot of money left to go anywhere.



But just a question for all those who think publishing accounts will solve the money leak. How exactly does it? I mean, if I were to write up my accounts in such a way as to fool the other members of my society, my senior treasurer (who in my case is actually an accountant), Richard Butler, and the finance committee - do you really think you're going to spot it?

glionder wrote:

We have a right to know where our money is being spent, especially when this money is being handed to other students.

Every penny of the grant (university/students money) is lodged into a bank account and the only way it can come out is via cheque, signed by either Butler or the senior treasurer. Cheques cannot be made out to cash. Where the grant money goes is beyond dispute, but thats not the only source of income.

Now it is possible as its been pointed out to under declare your cash operations (subs and tickets). I dont know how to stop that, but I dont think publishing accounts would.

What would happen would be a lot of pettiness and gossip. There are far too many know-it-alls and hacks in UCD. What I can see is a bunch of idiots looking at accounts, misreading/misunderstanding them and then running around like idiots.

For example, a large society ball willl have a VIP expense section in the accounts, and I bet many ppl will think: Oi, thats the committee paying for their night out. When more likely its the cost of the sponsors table, which many sponsors will insist on.

Where like ye said, if the committee wanted to pay for their night out, they'd just give themselves free tickets and steal some of the cash. Wont show up in the accounts then will it?

Then theres the whole sense of injustice and bitterness. Why did a society with half our membership get twice as much funding as us?! Its an outrage!

Heres a very relevent example. What if a certain society, which most of the members of the finance committee were memebers of got twice as much funding as a society of its size and activety could expect, surely the committee is obviously misappropriating funds?!
But in reality this societies grant wasnt dealt with by the committee because so many members had a vested interest.

I think there is one very basic and easy step that would put a stop to embezzlement. Separate the society auditor and student treasurer.

The student treasurer should not be appointed by the auditor, as is usually the case. I think the runner up in the auditor election should be made society treasurer, rather than a separate election, as this means they're very unlikely to be on the same ticket.
Infighting on the committee is the best way to make sure that nobody is acting the mick.

If there was a major case of embezzlement or an epidemic of it, which I dont believe, then the university should employ someone whos sole job it is to act as senior treasurer to societies. But wait, shock horror, there is a certain society which has a terrible rep for shady dealings, which Butler has become the senior treasurer of himself. Maybe the two are coincidence but, I for one, dont know.

Stabshauptmann

gliondar wrote:

Other colleges publish their accounts, why don't we.

In Trinity, the grants are published in the Student Newspapers along with accurate membership figures. Seems a reasonable request surely?

A)Publishing accounts and publishing the grant amount arent the same thing.

B)Membership figures aren't, and should hardly be the sole determinant of the grant. Many people I talk to seem to think it is, and I dont want to add to that delusion.

gliondar

I totally agree with you that membership figures are not a gauge to measure grant size but it is unfortunate that membership size is very much used to estimate grant. The grant normally resembles 2 euro per member if one examines the grants with exceptions being set for certain groups such as religious societies, political parties, etc.

But how can I argue this point with you when you are the only person who knows how much grants are. I'm going from what I've been told, seen and heard but since the finance committee is a 'secret forum', you can say whatever you like and say its the truth.

When I said to 'publish accounts' I was referring to the Finance Committee accounts, i.e. the grants distributed. Between 100,000 and 200,000 euro is given to societies every year from a budget of over 250,000 euro.
This is substantial.

I feel individual society accounts are private to their members and is a totally different matter. I would never ask them to openly disclose their accounts to non-members. But as a Society member, in the interest of improving the current system, I feel the Society Finance Committee should disclose its grant distributions.


All I'm saying is that if this grant information was published people would feel the system to be fairer because it would be open to criticism.

Then, I feel accusations that large society auditors are ripping students off would decrease and people would not be so disillusioned and think that Auditors are 'crack heads'. From my experience the vast majority of auditors are excellent representatives for the fellow students. However, there are a number of glaring inconsistencies within the process which will only change when there is greater openness.

pretty*monster

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

The student treasurer should not be appointed by the auditor, as is usually the case. I think the runner up in the auditor election should be made society treasurer, rather than a separate election, as this means they're very unlikely to be on the same ticket.

I don't think this is a good solution to be honest, in my experience the skills and interests required to be auditor are quite different to those for treasurer. Also in many small societies there is little or no competition for committee positions. In the last two elections of a certain small society the position of auditor was uncontested, the year before that the runner up for auditor would have been completely unsuitable for treasurer.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Infighting on the committee is the best way to make sure that nobody is acting the mick.

Unfortunatly it's also a good way to make sure the whole society implodes in an orgy of bitterness.

Infighting = bad.

Stabshauptmann

gliondar wrote:

But how can I argue this point with you when you are the only person who knows how much grants are. I'm going from what I've been told, seen and heard but since the finance committee is a 'secret forum', you can say whatever you like and say its the truth.

You have in effect just called me a liar.

Gliondar, I remember the last time you went on a rant about what really goes on at finance committees and with society accounts. I'm fairly satisfied after my own research that it's total BS. I *think* I remember you saying that you were on the finance committee, if so then either its changed a lot since then or your memory is fairly fuzzy. If not, well then that would explain a lot.

pretty*monster
Yeah, my solution wouldnt work well at all, but I still think that the auditor selecting the student treasurer makes the position as a watchdog defunct.

Still though, there is no way anyones ever going to convince me to whip my lad out and take a piss in butlers office once a week.

gliondar

I'm not a member of the current finance committee. That's why I do not know how much grants are this year.

I can off the top of my head think of 3 ex-members of the finance committee from separate consecutive years who were very unhappy about what happened during those meetings.
If I were to make a few phone calls I'm sure I'd find more.

Don't get me wrong, the majority of decisions made in those meetings are fair. But certainly in the past there have been many that were not and those are the ones I am speaking on behalf of.

That's my research. None of the above were auditors of large societies. Average Joe-Soaps. Since the committee is dominated by large societies that speaks plenty.

You've got the post that stretches half of this page. I think you are the one on the real rant.

Stabshauptmann

Yeah, because the lenght of a post is a sign of ranting, not that there was a lot of explaining to be done, or a need to explain things slowly.

Just a quick question, were you on the finance committee at any stage? I dont want to know what society or what year, just whether you were present at meetings yourself.

Because what you describe as the average meeting, dominated by the "big boys" where Butler screws over small societies for kicks in a system designed against us, where blatent embezzlement is over looked; is just so damn alien from the one Ive encountered.