SU Elections

Cid-Highwind

monument wrote: »

That's a good point.
It specifies the nominations period is one week, it specifies that to become a candidate one must have a current students as a proposer and seconder.

The text on these issues do not allow for retrospectively adding a proposer and seconder. Is there a clause elsewhere which allows for this part of the text to be superseded without a referendum?

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.

Nowhere does it say that nominations that do not meet this criteria must be rejected rather than returned to the candidate to be rectified. Your point of view is based on your interpretation of the constitution also. Please at least admit that, so we can agree that our interpretations do not agree and we can move on

lil_cain

monument wrote: »

That's a good point.

And if the action this morning goes unchallenged it will create a precedent of looking at the constitution in whatever way suits.




Public debate is a key part of any democracy, however small.

I'm not simply making an allegation. I am backing up what I am saying, I'd see it as fair comment. Anybody who disagrees is welcome to changing what I am saying. State agencies, councils, councillors, companies etc are interacting with people on boards.ie, I don't see why people within DCU can. On the other hand if I'm breaking any rules of this site, you can report me.



I don't think that's quite comparable:

First, no rapists were going to be released.

Secondly, the Supreme court ruling something is more like the Commission of Arbitration doing the same (and at that still not very comparable). The reps voting on a motion this morning where such is against the constitution is more comparable to an act of the of the Dail, although the latter seems to have more safe guards which isn't saying much.

Cid-Highwind wrote: »

There have been no new nominations, just changes to the submitted ones. This point is irrelevant

It's relevant because the full process of nominations has to happen before somebody is a valid candidate.



It specifies the nominations period is one week, it specifies that to become a candidate one must have a current students as a proposer and seconder.

The text on these issues do not allow for retrospectively adding a proposer and seconder. Is there a clause elsewhere which allows for this part of the text to be superseded without a referendum?

To quickly answer your points:

No, there's no rule against you questioning things on boards. However, given that there's a simple procedure to follow to do something, I question why you haven't grown a pair and brought this to the commission yourself, if you believe it's unconstitutional. The fact that you have not yet done that leads me to believe you're just stirring ****.

As for the idea that this is different from A, the only real difference is in the ruling body (which is something I would question myself). In both cases, the letter of the law would have resulted in injustice. In both cases, the law should then be interpreted to read in such a way as to not compromise justice. i.e. It should be read that a candidate being accepted without knowledge of his nominater's subterfuge is an undefined situation, which the Commission/Returning officer should react to as they see fit. This does not need a separate clause. As any lawyer will tell you, reading a law, never mind a constitution, requires more than merely reading the words on paper.

Secondly, there isn't anything specifying what you do when a student's candidature is invalidly accepted. You're assuming it defaults to immediately throw them out. Given that that's manifestly unjust, we're saying it does not.

gizmo

Regarding the posting of said person's name, no I don't want it on the Boards.

If it was sent out to the allsocs email then that's as much exposure as is warranted. If anyone wants to discuss this then feel free to PM me but do NOT do so on this thread.

monument

Cid-Highwind wrote: »

Nowhere does it say that nominations that do not meet this criteria must be rejected rather than returned to the candidate to be rectified. Your point of view is based on your interpretation of the constitution also. Please at least admit that, so we can agree that our interpretations do not agree and we can move on

It states the nominations period is one week, a week which is over.


And nearly everything is down to interpretations and is subjective, but generally people don't start every post on boards saying "in my opinion"

lil_cain wrote: »

To quickly answer your points:

No, there's no rule against you questioning things on boards. However, given that there's a simple procedure to follow to do something, I question why you haven't grown a pair and brought this to the commission yourself, if you believe it's unconstitutional. The fact that you have not yet done that leads me to believe you're just stirring ****.

If I'm trolling report me to the mods and leave it at that. Otherwise could you please stop what amounts to name-calling. Thanks.

lil_cain wrote: »

As for the idea that this is different from A, the only real difference is in the ruling body (which is something I would question myself). In both cases, the letter of the law would have resulted in injustice. In both cases, the law should then be interpreted to read in such a way as to not compromise justice. i.e. It should be read that a candidate being accepted without knowledge of his nominater's subterfuge is an undefined situation, which the Commission/Returning officer should react to as they see fit. This does not need a separate clause. As any lawyer will tell you, reading a law, never mind a constitution, requires more than merely reading the words on paper.

I know this, but -- as I have already said -- it does not apply where a constitution states X very clearly and a body under it is going against X.

The time for nominations is over, if nominations were not valid by the end of this time, they are still not valid now. Retrospectively filling a requirement goes against the constitution.

lil_cain wrote: »

Secondly, there isn't anything specifying what you do when a student's candidature is invalidly accepted. You're assuming it defaults to immediately throw them out. Given that that's manifestly unjust, we're saying it does not.

Still in two minds, but I'm siding towards not thinking it is unjust. And manifestly so if far too much of a leap.

The candidates and the election body both have some fault to bear.

Einstein?

A lot of people will have voted Doyle for president due to their giving away of Starburst sweets.

I was too going to give the vote, but after I ate three packets - a friend came along and told me to look at the expire date.

If you still have the wrapper - do look at the expire date.

--

Cid-Highwind

Einstein? wrote: »

A lot of people will have voted Doyle for president due to their giving away of Starburst sweets.

I was too going to give the vote, but after I ate three packets - a friend came along and told me to look at the expire date.

If you still have the wrapper - do look at the expire date.

Expiry dates are estimated very conservatively by manufacturers. They're basically sugar anyway, and sugar lasts for ages. I'm sure the sweets were grand.

It's sad though that the quality of free sweets seems to be the most important factor in deciding your vote though.

phantom_lord

gizmo wrote: »

Regarding the posting of said person's name, no I don't want it on the Boards.

If it was sent out to the allsocs email then that's as much exposure as is warranted. If anyone wants to discuss this then feel free to PM me but do NOT do so on this thread.

i got the email but i'm really not interested in the person or his personal details. just the idea of someone masquerading as a student sounds so bizare i just want to know the general details? surely adding more meat to the bones around that story is ok?

phantom_lord

Cid-Highwind wrote: »

Expiry dates are estimated very conservatively by manufacturers. They're basically sugar anyway, and sugar lasts for ages. I'm sure the sweets were grand.

It's sad though that the quality of free sweets seems to be the most important factor in deciding your vote though.

if someone's capable of passing off out of date confectionery to poor students in order to buy their vote i think it raises questions over their suitability for acting as president!

phasers

The freebies were mostly crap today, those Starburst were manky!

MonaghanPenguin

phantom_lord wrote: »

if someone's capable of passing off out of date confectionery to poor students in order to buy their vote i think it raises questions over their suitability for acting as president!

to be fair, best before dates and use by dates are very different things.

Cid-Highwind

The Council further recognises that the DCUSU Constitution is sovereign and
as such Council believes that the Constitution should be interpreted as a
'living document' with reference to the doctrine of stare decisis. [

The Council affirms the precedent set by recognising the judgements of the
Commission of Arbitration but believes that in this exceptional circumstance
the doctrine of stare decisis is applicable.

Therefore Council, as the higher level of governance than the Commission of
Arbitration, the Electoral Commission or Union Executive mandates the
following:

This is nonsense. The council is free to publish statements as it chooses, however, Article 12 and Article 7.6.4 are unambiguous in saying that decisions on constitutional interpretation are the ultimate responsibility of the commission, and that any member can refer any judgement to the commission.

The council is not a higher body in this respect, and has no official role in constitutional interpretation.

That the Returning Officer accepts as a nominee for both parties named above
a replacement registered student, whose registration was valid during the
2010 Nominations period, and allows both parties to run as legitimate
candidates in the 2010 Union General Election once the the student status of
the replacement nominees is verfified. Where challenges on this mandate are
made to the Electoral Commission the decision of this Council shall be
referred to and its authority as the higher level of governance should be
respected in this matter. This is without prejudice to the right of any
party involved in the elections to challenge any other element of the
election process.

That's fine, the electoral committee is a sub committee of the council, it can defer what it likes to it's parent committee.

Garseys

And here's me thinking that boards would be quiet during the elections this year!:pac:

oh and first results should be filtering through around Noon on Thursday.

themessishow

Garseys wrote: »

And here's me thinking that boards would be quiet during the elections this year!:pac:

oh and first results should be filtering through around Noon on Thursday.

If the count only starts Thurs @ 9, is it feasible to expect the results to be in at 12

snowcrazie

themessishow wrote: »

If the count only starts Thurs @ 9, is it feasible to expect the results to be in at 12

Do they not start counting at night?? I actually don't have a clue but i remember at least some of the count being a night last year!

themessishow

snowcrazie wrote: »

Do they not start counting at night?? I actually don't have a clue but i remember at least some of the count being a night last year!

No I think it has been changed this year, to bring it inline with the General and Local election process but I could be wrong...

Garseys

themessishow wrote: »

If the count only starts Thurs @ 9, is it feasible to expect the results to be in at 12

well equality and C&S officer would be known by then. I should have specified that!

KenGriffin

themessishow wrote: »

To reply to your comments, the students don't have a legitimate reason to know about everything that goes on behind closed doors in the SPC or SU. They are entitled to deal with such incidents without having to make the entire student population aware of such incidents.

I am sorry but we have to disagree on this one - I think this whole affair is seriously disturbing and needs to be discussed openly among the student body.

Your friend obviously has issues - I am not that concerned about the ins and outs of his personal business.

My concern is how he managed to get into the position he did without anyone in the Office of Student Life, SU, whoever figuring out that he wasn't a student for two years.

That is a discussion we need to have and the SPC's response to these revelations has been unsatisfactory to say the least.

Telling students three weeks after he resigned and only after they were forced into it by an SU EGM is not acceptable when you're just after dissolving a society for abusing students' trust.

snowcrazie

KenGriffin wrote: »

I am sorry but we have to disagree on this one - I think this whole affair is seriously disturbing and needs to be discussed openly among the student body.

Your friend obviously has issues - I am not that concerned about the ins and outs of his personal business.

My concern is how he managed to get into the position he did without anyone in the Office of Student Life, SU, whoever figuring out that he wasn't a student for two years.

That is a discussion we need to have and the SPC's response to these revelations has been unsatisfactory to say the least.

Telling students three weeks after he resigned and only after they were forced into it by an SU EGM is not acceptable when you're just after dissolving a society for abusing students' trust.

And what if you had done something like this?? would you expect the SPC to broadcast your name to the entire college? do you know the damage that could do to someone and the impact it would have on the rest of their lives?? No one who ever heard of it would ever want to deal with that person again, no matter how much they'd changed and turned their lives around.

It is not the SPC's resposibility to inform the student body of the issues that come before the committee. They are an elected committee whose job it is to deal with these things. Thats is how a democracy works whether you like it or not. You don't all get to make decisions, you elect people to do that for you and then you have to deal with the decisions they make.

I would also like to point out that the SPC is a committee of students, not trained political figures. They do an important job to their best ability and cannot be held responsible for things like this.

Because of what has happened here I'm sure new systems will be put in place but live and learn, don't dwell on the past.

If you haven't gotten involved with Clubs and Societies, taken on the responisibility of sitting on one of these committees or the SU then don't complain about hte people who volunteer their time to make your college life more fulfilling.

I also need to point out this person was very smart about the way he went about things. WHy would you doubt someone who sat on multiple committees, gave five years to clubs and socs and was always involved in everything DCU. You wouldn't.

thusspakeblixa

Just on Thursday's election results- The College View will be live blogging on our website/twitter from the count as all results come in.

Cid-Highwind

themessishow wrote: »

If the count only starts Thurs @ 9, is it feasible to expect the results to be in at 12

12 is probably a little early. It usually takes the first few hours to sort all the votes, and then the convenor counts will be done quite quickly.

gizmo

Right, unfortunately this topic has gone from slightly off-topic to completely libelous and as such has to be heavily pruned. Since there is an on-going investigation into the matter I will have to ask you to refrain from discussing the issue until the facts come out. Apologies to those people who have had their posts also culled due to being caught up in this, but I hope you understand why this intervention was necessary.

In the meantime, I'll leave the thread open but, to be quite clear, it is for SU Election discussion only.

public_enemy

You're no fun.

OrionsBelt

I noticed a Red Bull van near the Hub. Was this part of the Collie campaign?

DCUfm

DCUfm.com will have live coverage of the election count on Thursday...

• Extended news bulletins on-the-hour, every hour, live from the Venue from 12pm
• Liveblog and photos from the count centre on www.dcufm.com
• Special edition of Newswire at 4pm
• Breaking news updates during our usual programmes as and when the results come in

You can text us on Meteor 085 7515973 with your comments. Hope you enjoy the coverage

Choc123

Sorry but you talk about libelous comments and I think that is very relevant on this thread. Some things are being said about "Mr X" that are untrue and unfair.
I am not going to engage with people on this thread however I do want to make one point.
The person involved here has dedicated so much of his life, energy and time to DCU and has made so many friends here in the meantime. I'm not defending what he did, nor, do I believe he will attempt to do so either.
However, this is a guy who has injected himself into college life from day one and regardless of what he did, I believe he is being treated very badly by people in the students' union and on this forum.
I would hope that people don't forget what type of a person he is and I know myself that he has befriended so many people in this college.
Regardless of what happened, this person is an extremely good guy to the core. Hopefully people will support him in what is an extremely difficult time.

snowcrazie

Choc123 wrote: »

Sorry but you talk about libelous comments and I think that is very relevant on this thread. Some things are being said about "Mr X" that are untrue and unfair.
I am not going to engage with people on this thread however I do want to make one point.
The person involved here has dedicated so much of his life, energy and time to DCU and has made so many friends here in the meantime. I'm not defending what he did, nor, do I believe he will attempt to do so either.
However, this is a guy who has injected himself into college life from day one and regardless of what he did, I believe he is being treated very badly by people in the students' union and on this forum.
I would hope that people don't forget what type of a person he is and I know myself that he has befriended so many people in this college.
Regardless of what happened, this person is an extremely good guy to the core. Hopefully people will support him in what is an extremely difficult time.

No idea how to thank people properly on here, but that needed to be said, so thanks !

MegaDesk

gizmo in being a nazi mod shocker.

ollieyonex400

OrionsBelt wrote: »

I noticed a Red Bull van near the Hub. Was this part of the Collie campaign?

No, it was ordered in by the Drama Committee to promote the HAIR production for their opening performance last night.

Carri

MegaDesk wrote: »

gizmo in being a nazi mod shocker.

Needed to be done. I shall explain with the following diagram.

off topic v
:pac: rabble
^
gizmo

gizmo

MegaDesk wrote: »

gizmo in being a nazi mod shocker.

troll account in acting like a troll shocker.

Banned.