Class Rep Weekend in Wexford

Also Starring LeVar Burton

gubbie wrote: »

There was free booze last year. I remember it was bought in Tescos. Not on our first trip to Tescos, but our second.

Ah everyone's gotta have seen the front page of the tribune. Now class rep training isn't a waste of €10,000 but the couple of extra grand on that that they'll lose... not thats a waste

There was no free booze from the student union fund last year. Barry Colfer was kind enough to pay for a couple of cans out of his own pocket - how that is a bad thing, I fail to see. Not enough people give kind gestures these days.

What couple of extra grand??? Don't believe everything you read. The union haven't paid anything extra than the set price.

So far, there has been mere speculation and hearsay. There has yet to be any credible proof that "terrible" damage was caused. Even I can write that somebody who has something to do with something said "the student's union won't get their deposit back." Doesn't make it true.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

CaptainNegative wrote: »

There was no free booze from the student union fund last year. Barry Colfer was kind enough to pay for a couple of cans out of his own pocket - how that is a bad thing, I fail to see. Not enough people give kind gestures these days.

What couple of extra grand??? Don't believe everything you read. The union haven't paid anything extra than the set price.

So far, there has been mere speculation and hearsay. There has yet to be any credible proof that "terrible" damage was caused. Even I can write that somebody who has something to do with something said "the student's union won't get their deposit back." Doesn't make it true.

Just saw the article in the tribune. Can I take it you're saying that you feel it is completely untrue and that either they made up the quotes from the owners/managers of the properties, or else that the owners/managers were telling outright lies?

Stabshauptmann

Red Alert wrote: »

I'd like to see class reps behave a bit better than your average scumbag.

I think in the interest of fairness and accountability candidates shouldnt be returned automatically in the case of no opposition.

ie in a one seat constituency, if only one person puts themselves forward for election, that one person should still have to defeat RON.

Some might says thats harsh. If no one else wants the job then whats the harm in them doing it?

Well, simply put, if these people are claiming to represent you, you should have the right to say they dont.

I'd expect some hacks to come out with "theres nothing stopping you from running against them". There is; time, resources and interest. Just because you dont want to be represented by someone doesnt mean you want to represent others.


Also, the way I see it many people view the SU as irrelevant/unrepresentative to them, if they had to fight harder for their seats reps might do a better job.

Het-Field

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I think in the interest of fairness and accountability candidates shouldnt be returned automatically in the case of no opposition.

ie in a one seat constituency, if only one person puts themselves forward for election, that one person should still have to defeat RON.

Some might says thats harsh. If no one else wants the job then whats the harm in them doing it?

Well, simply put, if these people are claiming to represent you, you should have the right to say they dont.

I'd expect some hacks to come out with "theres nothing stopping you from running against them". There is; time, resources and interest. Just because you dont want to be represented by someone doesnt mean you want to represent others.


Also, the way I see it many people view the SU as irrelevant/unrepresentative to them, if they had to fight harder for their seats reps might do a better job.

You would guarantee to cut council in half if there was a RON option. People do exercise the option, and when somebody only needs to win a seat by 3 votes, the chances of the RON option being exercised are increased.

Some people do very well in Class Rep elections, and never turn up for council. In my years with UCDSU I know plenty of reps who were victorous in an uncontested race. Many of these were some of the best reps on council.

It would be a very lame attempt at creating fairness and accountability to offer the RON option.

Stabshauptmann

Im sorry but that makes no sense, how could they be doing a good job if you believe their constituents would prefer they not be their rep?

Het-Field

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Im sorry but that makes no sense, how could they be doing a good job if you believe their constituents would prefer they not be their rep?

Do you actually think that constituents actually care that much ? The vast majority of the UCD population could hardly name the five sabbatical officers, and I doubt could name any exec officers.

Stabshauptmann

What has that got to do with it. Your doing a song and dance here but evading the issue.

If you have an election, with just the one candidate and RON, the people who dont care wont vote. You'd be elected anyway.

Having the election though would raise the profile of the union, and of the rep themselves. And if they are a complete twat that their class doesnt want to represent them then they have the option of RON'ing them

DaveyGem

Sean_K wrote: »

Just saw the article in the tribune. Can I take it you're saying that you feel it is completely untrue and that either they made up the quotes from the owners/managers of the properties, or else that the owners/managers were telling outright lies?

A very good point indeed, I don't imagine they have much reason to lie, the SU on the other hand...

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Sean_K wrote: »

Just saw the article in the tribune. Can I take it you're saying that you feel it is completely untrue and that either they made up the quotes from the owners/managers of the properties, or else that the owners/managers were telling outright lies?

To be perfectly honest, as both a section editor of the Tribune and a Student's Union Class Rep who attended the training, I was unaware of these goings on at the time and as far as I know neither the Hotel nor the place we were staying were not at liberty to disclose any sort of information and they've since been contacted by the University and they've denied disclosing any such information, so in the words of Shakespeare "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark"!
I'm not saying that the class reps were sober little angels last weekend, but I'm skeptical about this so called damage - if it was really that bad, surely the majority of the people in attendance would have noticed, but no one I've spoken to was there heard anything about it at the time nor did they notice anything out of place.
Having said that, it would surprise me if anyone writing for the Tribune would make up quotes for a news story, but I'm going to need to see actual evidence of anything the union are being accused of before I believe it - so far I haven't, all I can go on is the fact that I was there, and being involved with both the Tribune and the Union am equally biased, so we'll just have to see how it plays out, but lets remember that it's "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around.

DaveyGem

CaptainNegative wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, as both a section editor of the Tribune and a Student's Union Class Rep who attended the training, I was unaware of these goings on at the time and as far as I know neither the Hotel nor the place we were staying were not at liberty to disclose any sort of information and they've since been contacted by the University and they've denied disclosing any such information, so in the words of Shakespeare "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark"!
I'm not saying that the class reps were sober little angels last weekend, but I'm skeptical about this so called damage - if it was really that bad, surely the majority of the people in attendance would have noticed, but no one I've spoken to was there heard anything about it at the time nor did they notice anything out of place.
Having said that, it would surprise me if anyone writing for the Tribune would make up quotes for a news story, but I'm going to need to see actual evidence of anything the union are being accused of before I believe it - so far I haven't, all I can go on is the fact that I was there, and being involved with both the Tribune and the Union am equally biased, so we'll just have to see how it plays out, but lets remember that it's "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around.

Surely as an editor, you could check where the quotes from the hotel/accom came from and also even lesten to the recording of that conversation....

As raggy as both the tribune and the observer can be, i doubt they would make up quotes, breaching what i imagine is one of the fundamental rules of journalism....

Stepherunie

Look I was there and 99% of people acted perfectly.

Sure they got drunk on the nights but so did most and the vast majority of alcohol was purchased by the students, not by the SU.

The vast majority of students had nothing to do with any of the damage that may or may not have occurred. In fact I'd say most students are at most guilty of bringing some mud into a house because of the really bad weather the second night.

Most people are smart enough to respect the fact they've been taken away for a weekend and dont' act the maggot. As with any large group of people there are always one or two bad apples who give everyone else a bad name.

I'm offended by what was written in that article because it casts all in a bad light rather than the truth which was a small minority who acted up in any way.