SU Elections

tvservices

Aralious2010 wrote: »

There are two candidates in question: a sabbatical position and a convener. It would be an utter disgrace if these two candidates were not able to run because of the idiocy, arrogance and ignorance of one person who is not even a registered student in the college.

The amount of planning, organization, time and money that these two candidates have put in to running for these positions has to be taken into consideration at Tuesday's meeting.

That would seem to be the best option and hopefully that will be the consensus among union council tomorrow and we can get on with the elections and over this mistake and learn from it.

myk

Aralious2010 wrote: »

There are two candidates in question: a sabbatical position and a convener. It would be an utter disgrace if these two candidates were not able to run because of the idiocy, arrogance and ignorance of one person who is not even a registered student in the college.

The amount of planning, organization, time and money that these two candidates have put in to running for these positions has to be taken into consideration at Tuesday's meeting.

Well it was a foolish error by the candidates. They should have looked at the student's student card when he was nominating them. All the same I don't think nominations should be thrown out at this stage. The electoral committee and returning officer deemed the nominations valid when they published the list of candidates.

milkwine

myk wrote: »

Well it was a foolish error by the candidates. They should have looked at the student's student card when he was nominating them. All the same I don't think nominations should be thrown out at this stage. The electoral committee and returning officer deemed the nominations valid when they published the list of candidates.

he was a well known face you wouldnt question..

lil_cain

myk wrote: »

Not trying to **** stir, but when I was in DCU the electoral committee got paid an hourly rate for their work during election time. Has this been changed?

They haven't been paid at any point while I've been in DCU.

Landa2

myk wrote: »

Not trying to **** stir, but when I was in DCU the electoral committee got paid an hourly rate for their work during election time. Has this been changed?

Yes this has been changed, they now get compensation for a union event and reimbursement for election related spending, like food during the count..

myk

lil_cain wrote: »

They haven't been paid at any point while I've been in DCU.

I've been gone a long time so

he was a well known face you wouldnt question..

Surely it is each candidates own responsibility to ensure that their own nomination papers are in order though, and it is the responsibility of the electoral committee to confirm nominations are valid before publishing the list of candidates?

KenGriffin

I suppose I should explain the logic behind my belief that the candidates involved should be removed from the election:

Their nominations are invalid. The SU constitution states:

10.1.10 In the case of nominations for non-sabbatical positions to the executive, a nomination shall include one proposer and two seconders, who must be registered students of DCU.
10.1.11 In the case of nominations for sabbatical positions to the executive, a nomination shall include two proposers and three seconders, who must be registered students of DCU.

Therefore, they cannot run in the elections. The Constitution can only be amended by referendum and the SU cannot hold one in time. If the candidates go forward with invalid nominations, the election is illegal.

Unfortunately, it cannot be postponed because:

10.1.3 The election for positions to the Executive shall be held before the end of the ninth week of the second semester. The elections shall formally be called by the Returning Officer of the Union.

There's no way around it. It's Game Over for the candidates involved. It should also be Game Over for the electoral committee, although I can't see how that can be achieved in time for the elections.

KenGriffin

Having learned a bit more about events, I've revised my opinion further.

I don't think that the electoral committee should go and I think some formula is needed so that the candidates can run.

EyesWide

KenGriffin wrote: »

Having learned a bit more about events, I've revised my opinion further.

I don't think that the electoral committee should go and I think some formula is needed so that the candidates can run.

Well there you go. Maybe you should continue to keep your opinion to yourself until you are better educated on events, Weren't you as bad when you were in DCU the first time?

TheChrisD

I'm not so sure throwing out those candidates from the elections is ideally what needs to be done. If it was a genuine mistake, then they shouldn't be thrown out over a technicality. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to find others to propose/second the nominations if need be.

While I don't want anyone's names named, I wouldn't mind finding out who this not-student in question is. Once I know who it is then I can decide for myself what to truly think about this situation.

monument

KenGriffin wrote: »

Having learned a bit more about events, I've revised my opinion further.

I don't think that the electoral committee should go and I think some formula is needed so that the candidates can run.

That's great to hear, but can you point out why you'd had this change of mind? What have you learned which has changed your view so quickly?

EyesWide wrote: »

Well there you go. Maybe you should continue to keep your opinion to yourself until you are better educated on events...

It's worth noting that while he has changed his view of what he feels is best, his first opinion may be the more valid one in light the constitution. If there is a way around this within the constitution, we all should be informed of this.

And people can't be blamed for forming opinions if information is being withheld.

EyesWide

monument wrote: »

That's great to hear, but can you point out why you'd had this change of mind? What have you learned which has changed your view so quickly?




It's worth noting that while he has changed his view of what he feels is best, his first opinion may be the more valid one in light the constitution. If there is a way around this within the constitution, we all should be informed of this.

And people can't be blamed for forming opinions if information is being withheld.

People have been informed that the full details will be released at the meeting, so people shouldn't start making public assumptions and guesses and more importantly forming ill-informed opinions - it doesn't do the elections any good, the candidates any good, serves no purpose for informed debate, and makes people simply look like idiots.

All this debate on the thread is just pointless, the meeting is on in the morning, everyone (including me) will be told what's going on then.....ill-informed opinions only serve to cause doubt and confusion and cultivate misinformation. Wait until tomorrow, then have your say.

lil_cain

monument wrote: »

It's worth noting that while he has changed his view of what he feels is best, his first opinion may be the more valid one in light the constitution. If there is a way around this within the constitution, we all should be informed of this.

If the candidates were acting in good faith, I don't see how excluding them would not be manifestly against the spirit of the constitution.

monument wrote: »

And people can't be blamed for forming opinions if information is being withheld.

Yes, they can. The SU has given the basics of the situation; enough to tell you that no candidate acted in bad faith. The petty lawyering without the rest of the facts is utterly retarded. We have a Commission of Arbitration to decide these things. Any comment made while this is essentially sub judice is both irresponsible and deeply unhelpful.

KenHy

Having read through this thread the whole thing is ridiculous.

The lack of information is a very bad reflection on the SU, and whoever is running the election. It only goes to validate that the SU is a clique and excludes the rest of the student population. The exact nature of any allegations/facts needs to be made available to class reps and their constituents if they are to be expected to make a reasonable decision in the morning. That includes who is effected, what rules were broken, how exactly they were broken, and what is this new proposed rule that will fix everything.

I agree that if the candidates acted in good faith, than it would be fair to allow them to partake, that said you cant just ignore the constitution just because it doesn't suit you. one of two things is has to happen, either the electoral committee has authorised the nomination and it stands at this point, whoever authorised the nomination being to blame or it is the candidates responsibility and unfortunate as it is they should be excluded from the election

EyesWide

KenHy wrote: »

Having read through this thread the whole thing is ridiculous.

The lack of information is a very bad reflection on the SU, and whoever is running the election. It only goes to validate that the SU is a clique and excludes the rest of the student population. The exact nature of any allegations/facts needs to be made available to class reps and their constituents if they are to be expected to make a reasonable decision in the morning. That includes who is effected, what rules were broken, how exactly they were broken, and what is this new proposed rule that will fix everything.

I agree that if the candidates acted in good faith, than it would be fair to allow them to partake, that said you cant just ignore the constitution just because it doesn't suit you. one of two things is has to happen, either the electoral committee has authorised the nomination and it stands at this point, whoever authorised the nomination being to blame or it is the candidates responsibility and unfortunate as it is they should be excluded from the election

So no candidate has done anything wrong. So the decision must be to change the regulations in some way or to accept the new nominators for the candidate or candidates involved. I don't see what is terribly complicated and indeed in breach of the constitution there. I don't think the constitution has been ignored in ANY way - but I would welcome any evidence of this.

I would very much agree that the procedures clearly need to be updated but remember, as a previous poster stated, the person who has caused this mess was high profile and everyone just assumed that person was in fact a student. The entire thing just shows that the structures are lax, you cannot blame the union which has on several occasions acknowledged that the constitution is not fit for purpose - they are the ones who have been trying to reform it and replace it all year. The reform has been slow, we probably won't get to vote on it til next year I assume, but the union seem to me to be doing everything they can.

lithiumoxide

I know it's quite clear from context, but the pedant in me would like to clarify one thing:

Most (all?) students in DCU are members of the SU. What people are referring to as the SU is, in fact, the SU Executive Committee.

KenHy

EyesWide wrote: »

So no candidate has done anything wrong. So the decision must be to change the regulations in some way or to accept the new nominators for the candidate or candidates involved. I don't see what is terribly complicated and indeed in breach of the constitution there.

no the decision does not necessarily have to ensure the candidates are allowed to run. The decision could be that it was their responsibility to ensure they had valid nominators.

Just because the SU have highlighted the constitution is flawed does not mean that it automatic excuses any cock-up that happens. Ken Griffin provided relevant sections from the constitution earlier which clearly state what is necessary to run in an election. If this is not in place, than as far as I can see they can't run. While it is unfortunate and probably unfair, one cant just decide the constitution does not suit therefore they can change it.

And yes, the SU is understood to mean the people who are to be found on the first floor of the hub.

EyesWide

KenHy wrote: »

no the decision does not necessarily have to ensure the candidates are allowed to run. The decision could be that it was their responsibility to ensure they had valid nominators.

Just because the SU have highlighted the constitution is flawed does not mean that it automatic excuses any cock-up that happens. Ken Griffin provided relevant sections from the constitution earlier which clearly state what is necessary to run in an election. If this is not in place, than as far as I can see they can't run. While it is unfortunate and probably unfair, one cant just decide the constitution does not suit therefore they can change it.

And yes, the SU is understood to mean the people who are to be found on the first floor of the hub.

I wouldn't disagree with you here - its up to Union Council to pass whatever it sees fit.

Nobody is proposing that Union council changes the constitution - its not able to do that, it doesnt have the power, it does however have the power to make regulations for an election that has yet to happen. It can equally repeal and insert new regulation up to the point where an election occures. KenGriffin does point out sections of the constitution that are applicable to the current 'crisis' but equally offer no solution or limitation to the proposed action of the Union to date. Mute point therefore.

The Union is doing nothing constitutionally wrong as far as I can see, to imply otherwise is unwarranted, and defamatory.

KenHy

I do see a problem with just changing rules, whether they be constitutional or not, just to suit. But leaving that aside as I would never claim to be an expert in what exactly union council can or cant do.

My original point was that full details should be provided before the meeting, along with all of the relevant rules so that an informed and considered decision can be made. It is not right to try and withhold as much information as possible (which the SU appears to be doing) and expect people just to go along with what they are told and be expected to make a quick decision tomorrow.

lithiumoxide

EyesWide wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with you here - its up to Union Council to pass whatever it sees fit.

Nobody is proposing that Union council changes the constitution - its not able to do that, it doesnt have the power, it does however have the power to make regulations for an election that has yet to happen. It can equally repeal and insert new regulation up to the point where an election occures. KenGriffin does point out sections of the constitution that are applicable to the current 'crisis' but equally offer no solution or limitation to the proposed action of the Union to date. Mute point therefore.

The Union is doing nothing constitutionally wrong as far as I can see, to imply otherwise is unwarranted, and defamatory.

The Union Council cannot change the Constitution - any changes to it can only be done so by referendum. And herein lies the problem. The Constitution sets out rules for nominations (proposers and seconders), and rules for the timeframe in which elections must take place. Now we have a situation where there is a a problem regarding the former, and not enough time to cater for the requirements of the second.

This is a dilly of a pickle, alright, and I'm very interested to see how it will pan out. My not-particularly-thought-out suggestion would be as follows:

1. Follow the Constitution, and remove the affected candidates.
2. Hold the election as normal.
3. If the Constitution allows it, call a second election, where the removed candidates can be proposed and seconded legally.

I think if polling goes ahead with all candidates tomorrow, there may be possible constitutional issues regarding the polling, making the elections illegal. However, there may be a way to "get around" it, maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and allowing all candidates to run for their positions.

EyesWide

KenHy wrote: »

I do see a problem with just changing rules, whether they be constitutional or not, just to suit. But leaving that aside as I would never claim to be an expert in what exactly union council can or cant do.

My original point was that full details should be provided before the meeting, along with all of the relevant rules so that an informed and considered decision can be made. It is not right to try and withhold as much information as possible (which the SU appears to be doing) and expect people just to go along with what they are told and be expected to make a quick decision tomorrow.

If you have a problem with it then you are within your rights to bring it up at Union Council in the morning as a member of the Student Union. It is not to suit anyone it is to suit the democratic process, and it's therefore up to the democratic mechanism that is Union Council to decide what he wants to do - it is the union councils job to do so.

On your original point - Both the constitution and the election regulations are available to anyone - they are online and in your email. The Union has told people that everyone that the information will be revealed at the meeting tomorrow. Do you think that there may be a reason why the Union maybe 'has' to withhold the full details of what has happened? Could there be legal implications that discussing it outside the structures of the Union could land the Union into all sorts of trouble? Which would be more responsible? Or could there be more humane reasons as stated by previous posters that may equally explain the reason the Union had decided to discuss within the only structures that they are allowed to speak about it?

The Union are doing things by the book. Why are they being crucified for this? Is this place the new College View?

EyesWide

lithiumoxide wrote: »

The Union Council cannot change the Constitution - any changes to it can only be done so by referendum. And herein lies the problem. The Constitution sets out rules for nominations (proposers and seconders), and rules for the timeframe in which elections must take place. Now we have a situation where there is a a problem regarding the former, and not enough time to cater for the requirements of the second.

This is a dilly of a pickle, alright, and I'm very interested to see how it will pan out. My not-particularly-thought-out suggestion would be as follows:

1. Follow the Constitution, and remove the affected candidates.
2. Hold the election as normal.
3. If the Constitution allows it, call a second election, where the removed candidates can be proposed and seconded legally.

I think if polling goes ahead with all candidates tomorrow, there may be possible constitutional issues regarding the polling, making the elections illegal. However, there may be a way to "get around" it, maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and allowing all candidates to run for their positions.

Just on the timeframe - the constitution makes no reference to the timeframe for which those nominations must be received - up until the election that is. So there is nothing stopping new nominators being presented and checked if Union Council decides to accept this as an innocent screw-up and pass one-time regulations for this election nobody is acting unconstitutionally and we can have the elections in week nine as required under the constitution before we end up in a position where we have to have a referendum to change the date of election in the constitution to then holding elections. Or we could just rule the candidates who were duped invalid - that would also be constitutional but possibly not very sensitive, when there is an easier way around it.

monument

EyesWide wrote: »

People have been informed that the full details will be released at the meeting, so people shouldn't start making public assumptions and guesses and more importantly forming ill-informed opinions - it doesn't do the elections any good, the candidates any good, serves no purpose for informed debate, and makes people simply look like idiots.

Calling people idiots even in a roundabout way, is childish.

EyesWide wrote: »

All this debate on the thread is just pointless, the meeting is on in the morning, everyone (including me) will be told what's going on then.....ill-informed opinions only serve to cause doubt and confusion and cultivate misinformation. Wait until tomorrow, then have your say.

You seem new to boards.ie. If threads are breaking rules use the report feature, but if you just think a thread is pointless, nobody is making you read or post on it. I would, however, say that the thread is not pointless, and even one of your posts has cleared something up.

What is causing doubt and confusion and cultivating misinformation is the lack of information flow from the SU to students -- the full story and all the possible options. Anyway, as pointed out by another poster all of this should be provided to the Class Reps before the meeting.

lil_cain wrote: »

If the candidates were acting in good faith, I don't see how excluding them would not be manifestly against the spirit of the constitution.

As I was saying, if there is a way around this [the letter of the constitution], we all should be informed of such.

lil_cain wrote: »

Yes, they can. The SU has given the basics of the situation; enough to tell you that no candidate acted in bad faith. The petty lawyering without the rest of the facts is utterly retarded. We have a Commission of Arbitration to decide these things. Any comment made while this is essentially sub judice is both irresponsible and deeply unhelpful.

In the one par, you accuse me of "essentially sub judice" and "petty lawyering". And, I guess, this isn't contradictory?

KenHy wrote: »

I do see a problem with just changing rules, whether they be constitutional or not, just to suit. But leaving that aside as I would never claim to be an expert in what exactly union council can or cant do.

My original point was that full details should be provided before the meeting, along with all of the relevant rules so that an informed and considered decision can be made. It is not right to try and withhold as much information as possible (which the SU appears to be doing) and expect people just to go along with what they are told and be expected to make a quick decision tomorrow.

What you call withholding information is more likely poor communication.

It's a nonsense (even if it is normal) that class reps who are to be representing the wider student body are voting on an issue like this before the wider student body is informed of the full story and the available options.

But maybe it's unfair to try to hold the SU up to these kind of standards when most institutions in Ireland can't communicate very well.

EyesWide

Now that I have cleared everything up so, let's end this pointless debate that's now going around in circles

public_enemy

EyesWide wrote: »

Now that I have cleared everything up so, let's end this pointless debate that's now going around in circles

FOAD. This thread is just getting started. More controversy please.

legendal

EyesWide wrote: »

Now that I have cleared everything up so, let's end this pointless debate that's now going around in circles

You realise nobody's forcing you to be here yeah? Let the people who want to debate do it, and if you'd rather not (nothing wrong with that either by the way) then you don't have to!

EyesWide

legendal wrote: »

You realise nobody's forcing you to be here yeah? Let the people who want to debate do it, and if you'd rather not (nothing wrong with that either by the way) then you don't have to!

Of course not, but someone needs to inject a little intelligence into the debate on here, last thing anyone needs is students thinking that boards.ie is an authority and taking this as gospel, Im sure you can appreciate that.

phasers

EyesWide wrote: »

Of course not, but someone needs to inject a little intelligence into the debate on here, last thing anyone needs is students thinking that boards.ie is an authority and taking this as gospel, Im sure you can appreciate that.

Thank you SO much for deigning to teach the plebs the way of the world :rolleyes:

EyesWide

No need to thank me, thank Jesus.

myk

EyesWide wrote: »

Just on the timeframe - the constitution makes no reference to the timeframe for which those nominations must be received - up until the election that is. So there is nothing stopping new nominators being presented and checked if Union Council decides to accept this as an innocent screw-up and pass one-time regulations for this election nobody is acting unconstitutionally and we can have the elections in week nine as required under the constitution before we end up in a position where we have to have a referendum to change the date of election in the constitution to then holding elections. Or we could just rule the candidates who were duped invalid - that would also be constitutional but possibly not very sensitive, when there is an easier way around it.

http://life.dcu.ie/committees/minutes/110/

10.1 Election Procedures
10.1.1 All elections shall be by secret ballot and shall use the system of proportional representation by the single transferable vote method as used in elections to Dáil Éireann.
10.1.2 General Elections shall only be valid should more than 10% of the membership cast votes, and those votes are proven to be valid.
10.1.3 The election for positions to the Executive shall be held before the end of the ninth week of the second semester. The elections shall formally be called by the Returning Officer of the Union.
10.1.4 The nomination period for all Union elections shall be at least one academic week.
10.1.5 The election of all positions, except Representatives positions and Postgraduate Committee positions, shall take place in the second academic week after the close of nominations.
10.1.6 Should there be no nominations for a position on the Executive at the close of nominations the Returning Officer shall reopen nominations for an additional two academic days.
10.1.7 Should there be no nominations for that position after the additional three academic days then the Council shall elect one of its voting members to the position on a part-time and unwaged basis, and the position shall be elected as a part-time, half-waged position at the Representative Elections in the first semester of the following academic year.
10.1.8 In the event of there being only one candidate for the post on the Executive they shall be deemed elected only if accepted by a majority of those casting valid votes.
10.1.9 Appeals with regard to the conduct of elections, including the counting of votes, must be presented to the Electoral Committee within forty-eight hours of the close of polls.
10.1.10 In the case of nominations for non-sabbatical positions to the executive, a nomination shall include one proposer and two seconders, who must be registered students of DCU.
10.1.11 In the case of nominations for sabbatical positions to the executive, a nomination shall include two proposers and three seconders, who must be registered students of DCU.
10.1.12 A member may only stand for one position on the Executive in any given election.
10.1.13 The Cian Brennan Rule: Candidates running for the position of Faculty Convenor must be a member of the faculty they are contesting.

10.1.5 makes it quite clear that elections take place in the second week after the close of nominations. So if nominations are to re-open then elections can't take place this week or next week.


That is assuming that this is the correct version of the SU constitution.