SU Elections

dramabob

MegaDesk wrote: »

gizmo in being a nazi mod shocker.

gizmo wrote: »

troll account in acting like a troll shocker.

Banned.

Wow, this thread made it to page 29 before Godwin's Law reared its ugly head. Not bad!

:|

snowcrazie wrote: »

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.

This should have been an indicator... (kidding)

douglashyde

I went to bed with last night with a headache from this forum!

Maybe Cillian can hug this whole situation away.

Katniss everMean

I wonder if there is many people that won't bother to vote after all that has gone on, and if so will we reach quorum. It be a terrible thing if we didn't but somewhat ironic.

douglashyde

Most people here on boards have submerged themselves in this election - but the majority of the voting student body are probably none the wiser to all this talk of "unconstituntional" and "bullying"

The thing is; I cant figure out if that is a good thing or not?

Katniss everMean

It seems we got quorum early on yesterday (Elephant told me)

KenGriffin

gizmo wrote: »

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.

Nope, I have no clue as to why the intervention was necessary or how over a dozen of my posts have been removed unnecessarily.

Would you care to enlighten me? The facts are that the situation is bound up with the SU election.

KenGriffin

snowcrazie wrote: »

And what if you had done something like this?? would you expect the SPC to broadcast your name to the entire college?

I know what we are not supposed to discuss this incident but I believe this begs for a response. Yes, I would expect them to do so. They've done so before, they've done so in this case and they'll do it again.

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.

It is when such a serious issue comes up. The person involved sat on a committee which regularly handles tens of thousands of euro worth of public money. It seems they had no place being on that committee.

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.

From the mouths of babes. I will merely point to my society fresher award, my first-five society award, my chairmanship of a major DCU society, my management of a DCU publication, my Gold Uaneen award and my tenure of various SU committees.

The reason why I am so angry is that this incident damages the reputation of DCU societies and undermines their administration.

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.

That's the issue for the SU. The electoral committee obviously needs to do things by the book in future.

douglashyde

KenGriffin wrote: »

I know what we are not supposed to discuss this incident but I believe this begs for a response. Yes, I would expect them to do so. They've done so before, they've done so in this case and they'll do it again.



It is when such a serious issue comes up. The person involved sat on a committee which regularly handles tens of thousands of euro worth of public money. It seems they had no place being on that committee.



From the mouths of babes. I will merely point to my society fresher award, my first-five society award, my chairmanship of a major DCU society, my management of a DCU publication, my Gold Uaneen award and my tenure of various SU committees.


The reason why I am so angry is that this incident damages the reputation of DCU societies and undermines their administration.



That's the issue for the SU. The electoral committee obviously needs to do things by the book in future.

Well said Ken.

However I do agree that this is off topic to the SU elections.

I'm also unsure as to if it is fair to open a thread on this matter. But certainly a full account of events needs to be published on this matter to everyone.

I have made a full statement on everything I know to Poker Soc.

I suggest that the SPC do the same, that might end this rumormill once and for all.

monument

snowcrazie wrote: »

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

Click on the thumbs up button at the right hand bottom corner of any post:

KenGriffin wrote: »

Nope, I have no clue as to why the intervention was necessary or how over a dozen of my posts have been removed unnecessarily.

Would you care to enlighten me? The facts are that the situation is bound up with the SU election.

I don't want do engage in back seat moderation, but -- just to let you know -- it's a rule around these parts to not engage in discussion about moderation threads. Contact the mod by PM or take to the help desk.

snowcrazie

KenGriffin wrote: »

From the mouths of babes. I will merely point to my society fresher award, my first-five society award, my chairmanship of a major DCU society, my management of a DCU publication, my Gold Uaneen award and my tenure of various SU committees.

The reason why I am so angry is that this incident damages the reputation of DCU societies and undermines their administration.

I neither know nor care who you are and I seriously doubt anybody else does either. It obvious from all your comments that you have a serious god complex which is sad considering the truth is you are condesending and irresponsible.

The student body has enough intelligence to know that mistakes happen and its only sad people who can't let go that go around looking for people to blame. In truth this incident doesn't undermine anything. It is what it is and we will all learn from it.

It's people like you who go around sensationalising things and blowing them out of proportion that undermine societies and committees.

But this thread could be a good thing, if more people hear about this and the things that have happened maybe it'll get them a little more interested in Societies and the studetns union.... some people live for a bit a drama *not looking at anyone in particular*

lil_cain

KenGriffin wrote: »

It is when such a serious issue comes up. The person involved sat on a committee which regularly handles tens of thousands of euro worth of public money. It seems they had no place being on that committee.

It's amazing how someone could sit on so many committees, and not understand the simplest things. The SPC deals with student money. Not public money. It's funded through capitation, not taxes.

And while I question why the SPC Executive Committee did not bring this to the attention of the full SPC (i.e. treasurers of all societies), it has no duty, what so ever, to bring it to the attention of the student population in general. It's responsibility has always been to the treasurers of societies, and through those to the student membership of societies. And not to anyone else.

myk

lil_cain wrote: »

It's amazing how someone could sit on so many committees, and not understand the simplest things. The SPC deals with student money. Not public money. It's funded through capitation, not taxes.

My understanding is that the capitation money comes through taxes. Back when I was in college I assumed it came through the student registration fees. We followed this up with the University as we thought the SFC (as the Office of Student Life was known back then) was entitled to more money based on the increase in the student registration fee and changing student numbers. We were told quite clearly by the university management that what we called capitation funding came from general university resources not from the student registration fee.

I could be wrong on this. The college management could have misled us on the details.

I appreciate this is off topic and of little relevance.

dramabob

Off-topic agreed, but this should clear this mini-issue up.

"Registration Fees" are also known as "Capitation Fees" or the "Student Services Charge." The capitation money comes from these fees, hence it comes directly from the students.

douglashyde

HA - this is thee "off topic" DCU thread.

I'm starting to feal a headache come on again.

myk

dramabob wrote: »

Off-topic agreed, but this should clear this mini-issue up.

"Registration Fees" are also known as "Capitation Fees" or the "Student Services Charge." The capitation money comes from these fees, hence it comes directly from the students.

Are you sure? Did the money the OSL received increase when the fees went up?

Btw I used to believe that it was outlined as you described above, before I discussed it with Una and I tried to get a better picture from the University of what we were entitled too.

Anywho I'm not that bothered one way or the other. I'm just being a little pedantic, mostly as a response to Cian's pedantry.

AFAIK Ken is a current student in DCU and a class rep. So while I disagree with most of what he has posted on this thread, he does have a legitimate interest. I'm really just being nosey, but am trying not to ****-stir or cause drama.

douglashyde

snowcrazie wrote: »

I neither know nor care who you are and I seriously doubt anybody else does either. It obvious from all your comments that you have a serious god complex which is sad considering the truth is you are condesending and irresponsible.

The student body has enough intelligence to know that mistakes happen and its only sad people who can't let go that go around looking for people to blame. In truth this incident doesn't undermine anything. It is what it is and we will all learn from it.

It's people like you who go around sensationalising things and blowing them out of proportion that undermine societies and committees.

But this thread could be a good thing, if more people hear about this and the things that have happened maybe it'll get them a little more interested in Societies and the studetns union.... some people live for a bit a drama *not looking at anyone in particular*

I Don't think people are "looking for people to blame" there are people to blame.

I also dont think anyone blames the SPC as a whole either - rather, a select few who didnt do their job right for various and maybe sometimes legit reasons.

As lil cain says - the SPC should be dealing direct with the treasurers.... and he is right - however the email that the SPC was a good move, but maybe from the wrong source.

Is this issue larger than the SPC? Should have the SU got involved? or the Registry?

my head hurts.

gizmo

monument wrote: »

I don't want do engage in back seat moderation, but -- just to let you know -- it's a rule around these parts to not engage in discussion about moderation threads. Contact the mod by PM or take to the help desk.

Indeed, this issue is being discussed with the user via PM. If anyone else has an issue with this and is not satisfied with my above response then please feel free to drop me a PM also.

As for the off-topicness, Bob has kindly cleared up the issue regarding the fees however this directly relates to the events which are not to be discussed until the SPC investigation has finished. When that happens I'm sure the SPC will release whatever information it deems fit for public consumption.

Killer_Cheese

Polls are closed!

The decision has been made.
Thanks to all who have voted.

Now we wait.

douglashyde

Killer_Cheese wrote: »

Polls are closed!

The decision has been made.
Thanks to all who have voted.

Now we wait.

So who is everyone voting for next year?

Killer_Cheese

Mr X for Pres

snowcrazie

Killer_Cheese wrote: »

Mr X for Pres

Hahaha

KenHy

Trying not to bring this of topic...

The Union Council has now clearly authorised an election that explicitly goes against the wording of the constitution. There is no spirit/gist there that can be read differently. Although the constitution does not deal with this particular issue explicitly, it very clearly outlines how elections should run and it is very apparent that this election falls outside this.

I can see how in the interest of fairness this is not a bad solution, but the SU now needs to accept that the constitution is effectively worthless as if required it can be ignored. Instead we got some nonsense about living documents and such balarny which is sweeping the issue of what the constitution means under the carpet.

The whole issue has been dealt with very badly, starting with communication between various student bodies (remembering that the same group of people are in charge of most of these, they hang out together upstairs in the hub), than with the communication between the powers that be and the Student population and their council representatives and finally with a solution which is clearly untenable to any rational person.

If there is to be a functioning SU in the college it needs to have a set of rules which it will abide by. Overlooking the constitution demeans the entire body that is the SU and denys it legitimacy when trying to represent the student body.

lil_cain

myk wrote: »

Are you sure? Did the money the OSL received increase when the fees went up?

Btw I used to believe that it was outlined as you described above, before I discussed it with Una and I tried to get a better picture from the University of what we were entitled too.

Anywho I'm not that bothered one way or the other. I'm just being a little pedantic, mostly as a response to Cian's pedantry.

AFAIK Ken is a current student in DCU and a class rep. So while I disagree with most of what he has posted on this thread, he does have a legitimate interest. I'm really just being nosey, but am trying not to ****-stir or cause drama.

My understanding of it, from talking to Una, was that we got a fixed amount from the Student services fee at the start of the year.

myk

lil_cain wrote: »

My understanding of it, from talking to Una, was that we got a fixed amount from the Student services fee at the start of the year.

That could certainly be correct...i wouldn't be surprised if we were given the wrong information at the time.

Cid-Highwind

KenHy wrote: »

The Union Council has now clearly authorised an election that explicitly goes against the wording of the constitution. There is no spirit/gist there that can be read differently. Although the constitution does not deal with this particular issue explicitly, it very clearly outlines how elections should run and it is very apparent that this election falls outside this.

Nothing is clear. Arguing that nominations found to be invalid, but submitted in the believe that they were correct, should result in the removal of the candidate is just one possible interpretation. The fact that the nominations were believed to be correct is an important point, making a mistake is very different to knowingly submitting a false nomination. The constitution indicates that the removal of candidates can only occur in the most serious of circumstances after a decision by the commission, a genuine mistake under false assumptions does not fit here. I've argued that at length and have no intention of getting into it again

Union council is a democratic body, it can vote on motions proposed and release statements about them. It is not the remit or the responsibility of the council to deal with issues in relation to constitutional interpretation. If any single member of the union is unhappy with the decision the council has made they entitled to challenge it under article 12.

KenHy

Cid-Highwind wrote: »

Nothing is clear. Arguing that nominations found to be invalid, but submitted in the believe that they were correct, should result in the removal of the candidate is just one possible interpretation. The fact that the nominations were believed to be correct is an important point, making a mistake is very different to knowingly submitting a false nomination. The constitution indicates that the removal of candidates can only occur in the most serious of circumstances after a decision by the commission, a genuine mistake under false assumptions does not fit here. I've argued that at length and have no intention of getting into it again

Stop fooling yourself. The constitution very clearly and explicitly states what is required for a Nomination to be valid, and these were lacking in this case. No interpretations to be had. It does not come under removal of candidates as constitutionally they were never candidates in the first place.

Cid-Highwind wrote: »

Union council is a democratic body, it can vote on motions proposed and release statements about them. It is not the remit or the responsibility of the council to deal with issues in relation to constitutional interpretation. If any single member of the union is unhappy with the decision the council has made they entitled to challenge it under article 12.

If the Union council did not vote to allow a motion to permit this un-constitutional election who did? what was the point of that meeting on Tuesday morning?

I am not going to go out of my way to get that decision reversed, I have no personal interest in it (locus standi and so forth as people seem determinant to apply the same principles to the Irish constitution as the SU one!) and because that's not the point I'm trying to make. I have no particular problem with the candidates, what I find disturbing is that the constitution can and is just ignored as suits. Even if someone succeeded in reversing the decision, people still believe that that was OK.

Insulting_Bitch

I'm sure you are all saying is very interesting, it's an awful pity it bores my bits off.

I, myself, prefer to speculate...so who do you think won?

Whose campaign deserves to win?

Cid-Highwind

KenHy wrote: »

Stop fooling yourself. The constitution very clearly and explicitly states what is required for a Nomination to be valid, and these were lacking in this case. No interpretations to be had.

I'm not fooling myself, I'm discussing my opinion. Any situation which is not explicitly covered requires interpretation. This situation is not explicitly covered. This situation requires interpretation. I am presenting mine. You are presenting yours as fact.

KenHy wrote: »

It does not come under removal of candidates as constitutionally they were never candidates in the first place

.

I did not mean to imply that it did. I did mean that the constitution implies that candidates should be disqualified from running only in the most serious of circumstances. Since your proposed action is to effectively disqualify candidates, and the constitution doesn't say "disqualify people for this", I'm comparing the current circumstances with what it does indicate are appropriate circumstances for disqualification.

KenHy wrote: »

If the Union council did not vote to allow a motion to permit this un-constitutional election who did? what was the point of that meeting on Tuesday morning?

Union council votes to do things all the time. It's not required to arbitrate on whether such actions are permitted under the constitution. There is a clear process in place should there be any disagreement. It's hard to fault the council if they make a decision and not one student raises their disagreement.

To clarify, I'm saying that the council should do what it feels is right, and in line with the views of those who elected it (the students) as long as it could be allowable under the constitution (and i'm not the only person who has argued it could be) and it is up to a different body who are not directly elected by the students to make decisions as to whether these actions are allowed should the need arise.

KenHy

It appears that our understanding of plain English differs, the constitution says

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.

10.1.10 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.

To me that very clearly states what is needed to run in an election. Certain people did not have this, yet were still allowed to run. The constitution does give guidance on what to do if one of the nominators is not a registered student, it says that the nomination is invalid and that person cant run in the election!

The election was unconstitutional, that is a fact.