Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SU Elections

Options
1…910121415…19

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    EyesWide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14 ✭EyesWide


    Now there is a stumbling block.....

    Ah well, looks like whatever candidates are unfortunately screwed.


  • Options
    #333
    legendal
    Registered Users Posts: 221 ✭✭legendal


    EyesWide wrote: »
    Last thing anyone needs is students thinking that boards.ie is an authority and taking this as gospel, Im sure you can appreciate that.

    Completely agree there :D

    I do believe it's a worthwhile debate though. In any case, it'll be very interesting to see what happens tomorrow. If their candidacies proceed, it's unconstitutional. If they don't, it'll be perceived as being unfair. Either way, nobody's a winner.


  • Options
    #334
    lithiumoxide
    Registered Users Posts: 162 ✭✭lithiumoxide


    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.

    Heh, trust me to overcomplicate things. Your suggestion seems much more logical.

    I've looked through the Constitution, and we have:
    10.1.4 The nomination period for all Union elections shall be at least one academic week.

    It also seems that there is no article governing when/why a Returning Officer can reopen nominations. This would suggest that nominations could be legally reopened to allow new proposers and seconders for the candidates.

    Any other thoughts from anyone?


  • Options
    #335
    EyesWide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14 ✭EyesWide


    My head hurts.


  • Options
    #336
    phasers
    Registered Users Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭phasers


    EyesWide wrote: »
    My head hurts.
    Take it up with Jesus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    lithiumoxide
    Registered Users Posts: 162 ✭✭lithiumoxide


    myk wrote: »
    http://life.dcu.ie/committees/minutes/110/

    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.

    Ah, just saw your post after I posted mine. To reiterate mine, while the "postponement" of the elections themselves can't be helped, there doesn't seem to be a law covering how, when, and why nominations can be reopened.

    I think reopening nominations might be the best way forward. That said, new candidates may be put forward, and they may or may not have an advantage in knowing what the current candidates policies are.

    The behaviour of the person who caused this has resulted in quite a mess; unfortunately this can't be helped this year, regardless of the solution that is arrived at. The best we can hope for is some damage control and a lesson learned. I'd hope to see some procedures put in place for future elections to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

    Mistakes will always be made; and they're the perfect opportunity to learn and develop.


  • Options
    #338
    EyesWide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14 ✭EyesWide


    phasers wrote: »
    Take it up with Jesus.

    I did he told me to get funked.


  • Options
    #339
    phasers
    Registered Users Posts: 18,159 ✭✭✭✭phasers


    EyesWide wrote: »
    I did he told me to get funked.
    Oh then just take some paracetamol


  • Options
    #340
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    lithiumoxide wrote: »
    To reiterate mine, while the "postponement" of the elections themselves can't be helped, there doesn't seem to be a law covering how, when, and why nominations can be reopened.

    Because the election was left to the last possible week and the nomination period for elections has to be a week long, it does not seem like the constitution allows for a postponement.

    I'm open to correction.

    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.


    Is there anything elsewhere in the full text that could be a solution?


  • Options
    #341
    KenHy
    Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭KenHy


    EyesWide wrote: »
    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.

    Your assuming I'm on said body!
    EyesWide wrote: »
    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?

    I have to say that seems unlikely, even if they could not revel the name of the individual engaging in this type of behaviour, they could easily have very clearly outlined what rules were the issues, and how they proposed to rectify the situation. (if they are proposing that at all). The constitution as posted by Myk clearly disallows any proposal that we have had so far, the organisers of this meeting should have outlined what parts were at issue and what they wanted to do. As it is people will be going into the meeting with rummers and hearsay as to what the situation is and how it can be dealt with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    Cid-Highwind
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cid-Highwind


    EyesWide wrote: »
    Now there is a stumbling block.....

    Ah well, looks like whatever candidates are unfortunately screwed.

    Not at all. The constitution is not a document designed to cover all eventualities, and dictate for all possible situations, it is open to interpretation.

    It would be perfectly fine IMO to decide that the candidates submitted their nominations in good faith and within the spirit of the constitution, their nominations were previously declared valid and are allowed to stand given the unusual circumstances.

    Like I've said before, many people ask whoever happens to be around the SU/Clubs & Socs to sign their nomination form. No one deserves to be excluded from the election on those grounds.


  • Options
    #343
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    Not at all. The constitution is not a document designed to cover all eventualities, and dictate for all possible situations, it is open to interpretation.

    Constitutions like the one for Ireland are open for interpretation (the rules are within written acts of parliament, statutory instruments and case law), but the DCUSU constitution is written in away where very little covered is opened to interpretation (the rules are written within the constitution).

    This is why these documents should be taken seriously when being written up (example: 14.1.5 The Omega Directive: Should the Students Union encounter an Omega Particle during the Academic year they are bound to seek perfection for a minimum period of 3.2 seconds and report back to Starfleet).

    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    It would be perfectly fine IMO to decide that the candidates submitted their nominations in good faith and within the spirit of the constitution, their nominations were previously declared valid and are allowed to stand given the unusual circumstances.

    It would not be perfectly fine. There is no provision in the constitution for such, or at least none that anybody here can point out. And it does not matter if their nominations were previously declared valid now that is known the nominations are not.

    Just to be clear on this: There is no provision in the constitution for what you are suggesting, nor is there room for interpretation to stretch to what you are suggesting. And class reps do not have the authority to supersede the constitution.

    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    Like I've said before, many people ask whoever happens to be around the SU/Clubs & Socs to sign their nomination form. No one deserves to be excluded from the election on those grounds.

    I'm in two minds about this tbh.

    What business does a candidate have just asking "whoever happens to be around", can they not take the process serious enough as to get it right?


  • Options
    #344
    KenHy
    Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭KenHy


    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    Not at all. The constitution is not a document designed to cover all eventualities, and dictate for all possible situations, it is open to interpretation.

    Yes it is, if the constitution clearly states something (as it appears it does) you cant get around it by claiming the "spirit" of the constitution is different. It is not open to interpretation.


  • Options
    #345
    Cid-Highwind
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cid-Highwind


    KenHy wrote: »
    Yes it is, if the constitution clearly states something (as it appears it does) you cant get around it by claiming the "spirit" of the constitution is different. It is not open to interpretation.

    Someone's lawyering without any knowledge of jurisprudence. The constitution does not state how to deal with an issue like this. Doesn't have anything to talk about it. As such, it's up to the SU president to interpret what it means, based on both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. If you disagree with however he chooses to interpret it, you can bring the issue to the commission of Arbitration.

    It is not however, meant to cover every eventuality. And like every constitution, a certain level of common sense, and a sense of basic justice is assumed in the interpretation. To disallow candidates running on the basis of a technicality like this would seem manifestly unjust. They relied on the representations of someone, whom they had no reason to disbelieve, on an issue that they had no reason to believe was contentious, or likely to be a cause for concern. As such, where a literal reading of the constitution would create a manifestly unjust outcome, in a way obviously not envisaged by either the drafters, or by those who voted upon it, it should not be read literally, but in the spirit it was written.

    But, ultimately, it's not randomers sitting around on boards that get to decide what the constitution does, or does not say. That duty falls to the President, and to the Commission of Arbitration alone. Us sitting around bitching and pontificating achieves nothing, and just makes life harder for those involved in this.


  • Options
    #346
    tvservices
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭tvservices


    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    Someone's lawyering without any knowledge of jurisprudence. The constitution does not state how to deal with an issue like this. Doesn't have anything to talk about it. As such, it's up to the SU president to interpret what it means, based on both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. If you disagree with however he chooses to interpret it, you can bring the issue to the commission of Arbitration.

    It is not however, meant to cover every eventuality. And like every constitution, a certain level of common sense, and a sense of basic justice is assumed in the interpretation. To disallow candidates running on the basis of a technicality like this would seem manifestly unjust. They relied on the representations of someone, whom they had no reason to disbelieve, on an issue that they had no reason to believe was contentious, or likely to be a cause for concern. As such, where a literal reading of the constitution would create a manifestly unjust outcome, in a way obviously not envisaged by either the drafters, or by those who voted upon it, it should not be read literally, but in the spirit it was written.

    But, ultimately, it's not randomers sitting around on boards that get to decide what the constitution does, or does not say. That duty falls to the President, and to the Commission of Arbitration alone. Us sitting around bitching and pontificating achieves nothing, and just makes life harder for those involved in this.

    This is correct. Having studied constitutional law as many more of you have also done the constitution is of course open to certain and different levels of interpretation. As you rightly pointed out it will come down to the president and the commission of arbitration.

    Anyone who like kenhy says that the constitution is "not open to interpretation" is just flat out wrong, sorry kenhy!! However that does not include making stuff up as we go along and twisting things into the words of the constitution that clearly are not there just to get our way, it of course has to be followed with a certain degree of strictness.

    As earlier pointed out, the constitution was not written with every eventuality catered for, that would be an obviously impossible task, that is where the 'interpretation' of the constitution comes into it.


  • Options
    #347
    Cid-Highwind
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cid-Highwind


    monument wrote: »
    It would not be perfectly fine. There is no provision in the constitution for such, or at least none that anybody here can point out. And it does not matter if their nominations were previously declared valid now that is known the nominations are not.

    Just to be clear on this: There is no provision in the constitution for what you are suggesting, nor is there room for interpretation to stretch to what you are suggesting.

    There is no instructions in the constitution for this specific scenario, and nor should there be. Therefore, the correct course of action must be interpreted from the spirit of the constitution in this matter, taking into account the intention of the requirement.
    monument wrote: »
    And class reps do not have the authority to supersede the constitution.

    I never claimed they did. The council can decide what they believe to be the best and most fair course of action. The commission will decide (if called) as to whether this course of action is an appropriate interpretation of the constitution.
    XIV. Article 12: Interpretation

    12.1. It shall be the role of the President to interpret the Constitution on a day-to-day basis.

    12.2. Constitutional interpretations may be referred to the Commission by any member of the union.


  • Options
    #348
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    Someone's lawyering without any knowledge of jurisprudence.

    We clearly seem to have a better understanding than you do. You keep saying something is open to interpretation, but you're not saying how.

    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    The constitution does not state how to deal with an issue like this. Doesn't have anything to talk about it. As such, it's up to the SU president to interpret what it means, based on both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. If you disagree with however he chooses to interpret it, you can bring the issue to the commission of Arbitration.

    Again, how is any of the following open to the interpretation you claim it is?
    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.
    If you can, please explain how this is open to interpretation.

    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    It is not however, meant to cover every eventuality. And like every constitution, a certain level of common sense, and a sense of basic justice is assumed in the interpretation.

    As I've already explained, the DCUSU constitution is not open to interpretation in the same way, say, the Irish constitution is. The DCUSU constitution is not like every constitution, the way it is written allows little interpretation.

    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    To disallow candidates running on the basis of a technicality like this would seem manifestly unjust. They relied on the representations of someone, whom they had no reason to disbelieve, on an issue that they had no reason to believe was contentious, or likely to be a cause for concern. As such, where a literal reading of the constitution would create a manifestly unjust outcome, in a way obviously not envisaged by either the drafters, or by those who voted upon it, it should not be read literally, but in the spirit it was written.

    What you're saying here would be true if there was a vague statement in the constitution. But there's not. Or, even, if the constitution did not cover the issue.

    But that's not the case.

    A few clearly written articles of the constitution would have to be broken. It's not open to the kind of interpretation you claim it is.

    This is the problem with a constitution written like this, it should not be written with such firm statements and too much detail without clauses allowing for flexibility. The details of the rules should be outlined elsewhere in text which can be changed by the reps, but that's not the case -- the constitution can only be changed by a referendum.

    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    But, ultimately, it's not randomers sitting around on boards that get to decide what the constitution does, or does not say. That duty falls to the President, and to the Commission of Arbitration alone. Us sitting around bitching and pontificating achieves nothing, and just makes life harder for those involved in this.

    Wow, yet another one of these types of comments. :D


  • Options
    #349
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Missed the last two posts before posting my last reply...
    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    There is no instructions in the constitution for this specific scenario, and nor should there be. Therefore, the correct course of action must be interpreted from the spirit of the constitution in this matter, taking into account the intention of the requirement.

    Because to take the action you are talking about, a clearly written article of the constitution would have to be broken, it does not matter that there is no instructions in the constitution for this specific scenario.

    Cid-Highwind wrote: »
    I never claimed they did. The council can decide what they believe to be the best and most fair course of action. The commission will decide (if called) as to whether this course of action is an appropriate interpretation of the constitution.

    Interpretation only goes so far. It does not go as far as saying black is white.

    tvservices wrote: »
    This is correct. Having studied constitutional law as many more of you have also done the constitution is of course open to certain and different levels of interpretation. As you rightly pointed out it will come down to the president and the commission of arbitration.

    ...

    As earlier pointed out, the constitution was not written with every eventuality catered for, that would be an obviously impossible task, that is where the 'interpretation' of the constitution comes into it.

    Wow, a constitutional law module now includes the DCUSU constitution. :eek: :rolleyes: :)

    See my above post about the Irish constitution bearing no relation to the DCUSU one, in the way these documents are written etc. And, yes, it can be open to interpretation, but does not seem to be in this case. If you are saying it is, it is up to you to say how. As far as I can see, you'd have to break clearly written articles, which is not on.

    tvservices wrote: »
    Anyone who like kenhy says that the constitution is "not open to interpretation" is just flat out wrong, sorry kenhy!! However that does not include making stuff up as we go along and twisting things into the words of the constitution that clearly are not there just to get our way, it of course has to be followed with a certain degree of strictness.

    You're miss-quoting, quoting out of context, and/or misinterpreting him.

    He said:
    Yes it is, if the constitution clearly states something (as it appears it does) you cant get around it by claiming the "spirit" of the constitution is different. It is not open to interpretation.

    This does not mean the whole constitution is not open to interpretation. It means the sections we were talking about are not. The articles are clearly written, as quoted in my last post.


  • Options
    #350
    KenHy
    Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭KenHy


    I was going to reply, but monument has said anything I would have said better!
    Again, how is any of the following open to the interpretation you claim it is?

    Quote:
    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.

    If you can, please explain how this is open to interpretation.


  • Options
    #351
    lil_cain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭lil_cain


    KenHy wrote: »
    I was going to reply, but monument has said anything I would have said better!

    Because it clearly doesn't make any provision for people misrepresenting themselves as students.


    And you've asserted, but given no evidence for, DCU SU's constitution being in some way different to that of the Irish State when it comes to interpretation. Asserting something is not the same as proving it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    myk
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭myk


    monument wrote: »

    This is why these documents should be taken seriously when being written up (example: 14.1.5 The Omega Directive: Should the Students Union encounter an Omega Particle during the Academic year they are bound to seek perfection for a minimum period of 3.2 seconds and report back to Starfleet).

    Who put that in? I presume the "Cian Brennan" clause went in at the same time?


  • Options
    #353
    myk
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭myk


    lil_cain wrote: »
    Because it clearly doesn't make any provision for people misrepresenting themselves as students.

    But it does clearly say that nominations should be proposed and seconded by a set number of registered DCU students.

    I think the most flexible part of the constitution in dealing with this is most likely to take the view that when the Returning Officer and Electoral committee published the nominees that they were then deemed valid, and shouldn't be challenged after that time. Its not a cast iron approach, but it seems to be the best way if they candidates in question are not to be thrown out of the election.

    I'm sure most candidates didn't check the student cards of their proposers and seconders (I'm pretty sure I didn't way back when), but hopefully they will from now on. And hopefully the electoral committee will check this at the start of the election process not at the end. And finally hopefully future electoral committees will not leave elections to the last possible constitutionally valid date.


  • Options
    #354
    dramabob
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭dramabob


    Polls are due to open NOW guys. Any updates from UC?


  • Options
    #355
    dramabob
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭dramabob


    myk wrote: »
    Who put that in? I presume the "Cian Brennan" clause went in at the same time?

    I was on the Constitutional Reform Committee responsible for both clauses, not that I'm accepting personal responsibility for either. The Cian Brennan Clause is a valid one resulting from Cian's interpretation of the then DCU SU constitution that had no clause stating that a candidate for Faculty Convenor actually had to be a student in said faculty. I believe he ran for Engineering & Computing Convenor despite being a Humanities student.

    As for the Omega Particle Clause, that was partly a joke and partly an experiment to see how carefully the constitution was proofread before being approved. Not very well, as it turned out.


  • Options
    #356
    myk
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭myk


    dramabob wrote: »
    I was on the Constitutional Reform Committee responsible for both clauses, not that I'm accepting personal responsibility for either. The Cian Brennan Clause is a valid one resulting from Cian's interpretation of the then DCU SU constitution that had no clause stating that a candidate for Faculty Convenor actually had to be a student in said faculty. I believe he ran for Engineering & Computing Convenor despite being a Humanities student.

    As for the Omega Particle Clause, that was partly a joke and partly an experiment to see how carefully the constitution was proofread before being approved. Not very well, as it turned out.

    Naming a clause after someone in the constitution serves very little purpose other than to amuse some people and make the SU appear to be more cliquey to everyone else.

    The other Clause, again adds to the cliquey appearance, and as another person pointed out shows the lack of seriousness that people take in their approach to the constitution.

    But that's just the opinion of an old hack :)


  • Options
    #357
    myk
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭myk


    dramabob wrote: »
    Polls are due to open NOW guys. Any updates from UC?


    According to the SU facebook account, polls are now open.


  • Options
    #358
    dramabob
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭dramabob


    Opinion duly noted Myk. But the practice of naming clauses or rules (or diseases or just about anything else) after the person that first caused/suffered/invoked them is a time-honoured tradition.

    Major League Baseball has Tommy John surgery (elbow ligament replacement) named after the first pitcher to undergo it. Similarly, as recently as 2009, the Pete Venditte rule was established to govern rules for ambidextrous pitchers. I'm sure you're familiar with football's Bosman ruling governing contract/free agency regulations. Lou Gehrig's Disease, the list is endless. The Cian Brennan Clause was not designed to be an example of cliquey-ness. It was named after him as he was the first to point out the loophole.

    Then again, I'm also an old hack and thusly entitled to my opinions :)


  • Options
    #359
    myk
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭myk


    dramabob wrote: »
    Opinion duly noted Myk. But the practice of naming clauses or rules (or diseases or just about anything else) after the person that first caused/suffered/invoked them is a time-honoured tradition.

    Major League Baseball has Tommy John surgery (elbow ligament replacement) named after the first pitcher to undergo it. Similarly, as recently as 2009, the Pete Venditte rule was established to govern rules for ambidextrous pitchers. I'm sure you're familiar with football's Bosman ruling governing contract/free agency regulations. Lou Gehrig's Disease, the list is endless. The Cian Brennan Clause was not designed to be an example of cliquey-ness. It was named after him as he was the first to point out the loophole.

    Then again, I'm also an old hack and thusly entitled to my opinions :)

    Have you ever seen sections of constitutions named after people? When I don't know much about baseball; things are often colloquially named after people but are rarely codified in rules or laws under such names in my experience.


  • Options
    #360
    lil_cain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭lil_cain


    myk wrote: »
    Naming a clause after someone in the constitution serves very little purpose other than to amuse some people and make the SU appear to be more cliquey to everyone else.

    The other Clause, again adds to the cliquey appearance, and as another person pointed out shows the lack of seriousness that people take in their approach to the constitution.

    But that's just the opinion of an old hack :)

    As cool as it is to have my name in the constitution, I think myk is correct here. My name being in it just makes the whole thing look a bit sillier (although, not to anything like the same extent that the Star Trek references do)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    KenGriffin
    Registered Users Posts: 29 ✭KenGriffin


    I feel that I owe it to everyone to explain my earlier U-turn on the issue of the SU elections.

    Firstly, my original post is the correct constitutional position regarding elections. I stand by that completely.

    The problem is that the current situation is one that is miles outside of anything that could ever be envisaged by the constitution's drafters.

    It's a delicate position but what I can say is that the candidates involved are victims in all of this - the signatory involved misrepresented their status as a student to them.

    In fact, it appears that this person misled everyone about this for a number of years.

    I am satisfied that given the circumstances, the electoral committee made a reasonable assumption when processing the nominations which led to them not detecting the issue.

    The identity of this person is not known to me but I am sure that the full story will emerge in due course.


Advertisement