SU Elections

phantom_lord

KenHy wrote: »

The election was unconstitutional, that is a fact.

Yup. Don't think there's much doubt about it tbh.

KenGriffin

myk wrote: »

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.

That was also my understanding. Then again, the system could have either changed or we were misled at various points.

KenGriffin

Cid-Highwind wrote: »

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.

Okay. I suppose what myself and the other Ken are trying to establish is what element of the constitution supports your interpretation. Both of us have pointed to elements of Article 10 to support our case.

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

The problem is that it says that their nominations have to signed by a prescribed number of DCU students and that the nomination process must be completed two weeks before the polls open. Neither of these conditions have been met.

This probably gets to the heart of my beef with the SPC in all of this - if they had informed the SU of the problem when they discovered it - three weeks ago - the SU could have reopened nominations and we could have had a perfectly legal election. Now we have a messy process which is unconstitutional.

KenGriffin

snowcrazie wrote: »

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.

Thank you for the compliments.

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.

Yes, mistakes do happen but this is a pretty fundamental one, which saw a non-student get onto an important college committee and nominate candidates for an SU election without being challenged.

I am not sensationalising the issue - the issue doesn't undermine any societies in particular but it undermines the SPC in terms of its role to ensure that student funding is spent properly.

The SPC has some serious questions to answer and it needs to strengthen its procedures. My fear is that - like you - the organisation will place its head into the sand and not learn from this mistake.

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

I am not sensationalising the affair - the whole thing is sufficently bizarre and sensational without my aid.

snowcrazie

KenGriffin wrote: »

This probably gets to the heart of my beef with the SPC in all of this - if they had informed the SU of the problem when they discovered it - three weeks ago - the SU could have reopened nominations and we could have had a perfectly legal election. Now we have a messy process which is unconstitutional.

If you have sat on these committees before then you should know the SPC and the SU are completely seperate bodies. Do the current members of the SU check the nomination forms?

The SPC had no reason to suspect he would sign nomination forms. They had already done as much as they could possibly do at that point i.e. ask him to stand down from all committees and give him a time from to return the money or provide proof of his story.

All laws and constitutions require interpretation, saying they don't is ridiculous. These things are put in place to protect the student body. Not all possible circumstances can be forseen and therefore provided for in the constitution. If you take things to the letter sometimes you run the risk of doing more bad then good, many other cases where this is evident have been quoted on the thread already. Life and the "law" (for the purposes of this conversation) are not black and white, as much as you'd like them to be.

Judges and committees are there to read the consitution/law and apply it such a way that justice prevails.

I am in no way "placing my head in the sand" - I am just saying that in my opinion what has been done to deal with the situation is sufficient and I don't see the point of the debating it further.

Urizen

Insulting_Bitch wrote: »

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?

You're right to try and steer the thread away, but I don't think they're gonna give up that easily.

That Clubs & Socs Officer candidate really is something though, isn't he? I hope he wins. So handsome and amazing...

Everyone else, sense the lighthearted tone. There's no need for the arguing. Wht can't we all just get along? Actually, why don't you Let The Sunshine In?

The SuuuuunShine Iiiiin!

eagleye7

On the subject of who's going to win, obviously there is one race I hope ends in landslide victory, but from being out campaigning pretty much all day yesterday and today, I think the general feeling is all of the races will be a tough call, Obviously i have my own opinions and hopes but objectively I think all the races are too close to call.

A couple of recounts wouldn't surprise me. Even the uncontested positions have a tough count ahead, running against the greatest opponent of all, no-one.

Grudaire

Urizen wrote: »

The SuuuuunShine Iiiiin!

That's enough of that.



Now where were we?

monument

Somebody today said that the Aims and Objectives can be used to give interpretation to the other rules that this election is breaking.

But I'm still unclear what -- if any -- part of these would do such.

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


IV. Article 2: Aims and Objectives 2.1 The aims and objectives of the Union shall be:
2.1.1. To represent all of its members on matters affecting their distinctive student experience. This is with regards to both their academic and extra-curricular education, as members of the University.
2.1.2. To work for an equitable education system in this country, based on the principle that education is a fundamental right, not a privilege.
2.1.3. To seek and provide facilities and resources required by, and advantageous to its members.
2.2 In pursuing these aims and objectives, the Union shall:
2.2.1 Act in a fair, transparent and democratic manner in all activities.
2.2.2 Represent all members equally, regardless of race, gender, age, physical ability, religious or philosophical affiliation, nationality, sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation or other prejudicial factor.
2.2.3 Train and develop student officers, class representatives and staff to a level of excellence that will guarantee a high quality of representation and service to all students.
2.2.4 Formulate, implement and review short, medium and long term strategies.
2.2.5 Pursue good relationships with other Students’ Unions.
2.2.6 Manage resources and budget effectively and use effective controls to safeguard Union finances in the short, medium and long terms.
2.2.7 Act as a fair and equal employer and ensure excellent working relations between officers and staff.
2.2.8 Refrain from political discussion and/or activity unless it is directly relevant to the pursuance of the aims and objectives contained in this constitution.

I was also told the Union Council could set short term policy and rules. This is true, article four says:

4.5. Council may adopt non-permanent policies from time to time by a decision cast by a qualified majority. Such policies must carry a review date, being not more than two years after the date of adoption and shall be recorded in schedule 1.

But article four also puts limits on this, including where it says:

4.9. Policies shall not be in breach of the Constitution.

snowcrazie wrote: »

All laws and constitutions require interpretation, saying they don't is ridiculous.

Nobody here is saying that.

What is being said is that, in this case, there are elements of the constitution so firmly and clearly written that they are not open to interpretation. This all has been said before.

snowcrazie wrote: »

Not all possible circumstances can be forseen and therefore provided for in the constitution.

Indeed, not all can be. But this has already been pointed out as a flaw of the constitution. It is way too detailed where it should be more general.

This, however, is not a valid reason to ignore current valid parts of the constitution just because it suits the SU and people who wanted to be candidates.

snowcrazie wrote: »

If you take things to the letter sometimes you run the risk of doing more bad then good, many other cases where this is evident have been quoted on the thread already.

Where there is no room for interpretation, you have to take a constitution to the letter.

snowcrazie wrote: »

Life and the "law" (for the purposes of this conversation) are not black and white, as much as you'd like them to be.

Yes, law is not black and while, but some elements of it are.

douglashyde

I can't decide personally if the candidates should have been allowed run. However they have.

My question is; besides from making sure this mistake doesn't happen again. Is there anything we can do about it now?

supine

douglashyde wrote: »

I can't decide personally if the candidates should have been allowed run. However they have.

My question is; besides from making sure this mistake doesn't happen again. Is there anything we can do about it now?

what purpose would it serve now, to do anything other than make sure it doesn't happen again?

The current candidates are the only ones who sought nomination. If anyone else wanted to run, or doesn't like the candidates running, then it's their own fault for not getting themselves nominated in the first place.

Regardless of whether or not the election may be "unconstitutional" or "illegal" based on this particular situation the college finds itself, contesting it on these grounds only serves to antagonise everybody by forcing another election, when in actual fact if the nomination forms had been completed properly in the first place, we would still have the exact same candidates.

Bear in mind this is the same contitution that is already meant to be under review, and which one of the presidential candidates has already said he would like to throw out completely.

JoePie

It's done now. Stop moany and giving us long winded, farty replies and give us the results.

thusspakeblixa

From 9am the College View will be tweeting from the election count. We should have a reporter there all day.
You can follow our updates (and contribute to the discussion) over on twitter. The hashtag is #dcusu10 and our twitter account can be found here.

thusspakeblixa

Almost forgot- apart from our updates on twitter, the College View will be bringing you mini-interviews with candidates throughout the day over on the election section of our website.
Don't forget to tune into www.dcufm.com for more updates throughout the day.

dramabob

Early estimates coming in on the Twitter feed make for interesting reading: http://twitter.com/thecollegeview

Alfla

How are they pulling these early tallies? First time I've ever used Twitter, what a marvellous technological age we live in!

*spins away dramatically*

myk

Alfla wrote: »

How are they pulling these early tallies? First time I've ever used Twitter, what a marvellous technological age we live in!

*spins away dramatically*

It looks like random counts from the sorting of ballots; as the numbers are so low.

dramabob

Alfla wrote: »

How are they pulling these early tallies? First time I've ever used Twitter, what a marvellous technological age we live in!

*spins away dramatically*

myk wrote: »

It looks like random counts from the sorting of ballots; as the numbers are so low.

I agree with myk on this one - they're separating ballots at the moment, so I would suspect it's a very informal observation. "Oh, there's a vote for Megan" etc.

thusspakeblixa

It is a very informal observation. But basically I'm doing a "tally of tallies" and getting a close-to-average number.
It may not be completely accurate but it's a decent indicator.

thusspakeblixa

Half the votes for President are counted.
We will have figures in 5 minutes.
Remember to check our website (the elections section) and twitter.

EDIT: After just under half the count for SU President, the figures are Dave 271 / Ciaran 227 / Meg 296

And Education & Welfare looks like a win for Cillian (at this early stage- not at all definite)

douglashyde

After what MonaghanPenguin said - Im not sure if I want Dave or Meg to win..... I dont know who to root for!

dramabob

From the Twitter feed:

Brian McDonald - 1524 YES votes for Clubs and Socs. (Quota 923) ELECTED!!

myk

dramabob wrote: »

From the Twitter feed:

Brian McDonald - 1524 YES votes for Clubs and Socs. (Quota 923) ELECTED!!

Someone on the twitter feed doesn't understand that quotas don't apply to Yes/No votes

Well done to Brian!

lil_cain

dramabob wrote: »

From the Twitter feed:

Brian McDonald - 1524 YES votes for Clubs and Socs. (Quota 923) ELECTED!!

Anyone know yes/no/spoils?

Cid-Highwind

lil_cain wrote: »

Anyone know yes/no/spoils?

Well, 1848 valid votes with 1524 yes would be 324 no votes and about 100 spoils.

myk

Cid-Highwind wrote: »

Well, 1848 valid votes with 1524 yes would be 324 no votes and about 100 spoils.

If those figures are accurate then the person on the twitterfeed doesn't know how to calculate a quota either!

lil_cain

myk wrote: »

If those figures are accurate then the person on the twitterfeed doesn't know how to calculate a quota either!

I assume they mean quorum :-P

thusspakeblixa

myk wrote: »

If those figures are accurate then the person on the twitterfeed doesn't know how to calculate a quota either!

We literally just take down what the electoral commission announce in the case of quotas.
Don't shoot the messenger.

myk

lil_cain wrote: »

I assume they mean quorum :-P

Really? What is it? 5% of those eligible to vote. The number they came up with is one less than half the valid votes. A quota in a single seat a election should be one more than half the valid votes. Of course this being a yes/no vote there is no such thing as a quota. But yes, there is a quorum.

myk

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

We literally just take down what the electoral commission announce in the case of quotas.
Don't shoot the messenger.

That is worse then!