SU Elections

Regarding MonaghanPenguin's post: I'm not surprised. Doyle has a noticeably twat-like aura about him, especially when in political mode. My initial judgements were confirmed when campaigning started. It's ok though; just remind him that he lost an election to me. :pac:

Fully agree with MonaghanPenguin's post. This has been the feeling I have got when listening to them canvas, their posts on this board and basically their presence on campus...

Cid-Highwind

OrionsBelt wrote: »

seems to be a lot of arguing about the President here. what about the other sabbatical positions?

Indeed. This is a real problem every year, debates etc. focus on the Presidential candidates while the other sabbatical officers also have very important roles they get very little space to debate their ideas

OrionsBelt wrote: »

for vice, it maeve, cos while collie is a nice guy and all, her campaign is again more about improving the role and making the college better. anyone else have an opinion?

While Maeve has said she will change things I think that collie would too, based on what little I've seen.

What's important is how they want to change it. The fact is that we have a real problem with a divide between 'the union' and 'the students'. This is not a problem that can be solved over night, but the candidate that said the campaigns we're doing relatively fine and presented a real plan to work on information (both ways) would get my vote.

As happens every year, the presidential candidates have been asked about life.dcu.ie at length. It's the campaigns & information officer candidates that need to answer this question. Whether it should stay or go is irrelevant, the issue is at present that the union website fails at what should be it's primary purpose - to make information easily available to students.

The idea of life.dcu.ie as a discussion area is a dead idea, pushing it is simply living in the past. It doesn't matter how much money you spend on the website (it's appalling we've paid money for something we could have built with the talents of our own computing and multimedia students, but that's done), the fact is that everyone I know is on facebook. It's good to see this year the SU finally have a facebook page, but, it's a resource that's still horribly underused. There are more people on facebook who have registered themselves as currently attending DCU than there are copies of campus printed weekly, yet the resources dedicated to each don't reflect this.

Information can't just work in one direction, the Union needs be more able to listen to the needs of the students and to bring this back to the executive. We need a communication officer far more than a campaigns and information officer. We have formal communication structures, through the union council/class rep system etc., and while there's plenty of scope for improving them what needs to really be developed is an informal communication structure. I'd bet any money that if the campaigns and information officer sat in the Henry Grattan every Wednesday they would get questions and feedback that would never make it up to 'the office', and the benefit of it would be enormous.

Obviously, in light of my previous campaigns I have strong feelings on the type of change we need, but my point is it's not enough to say you want change, we need simple solutions proposed to the problem the person stepping into this role needs to tackle.

Both of the candidates have of course mentioned this, but, I'd like to see them further discuss their ideas in this area. Both candidates have said they want more and better of everything, which is a fine goal but perhaps not a practical one. Having read both manifestos I'm still not sure what your priorities are.

In relation to the constitution, which Maeve mentions in her manifesto post, I think it's important to remember that there's currently a draft constitution that might be voted on in future, it's up to the people elected next week how that process develops. Regardless, in the case of all the candidates the constitution is there to define broadly what your role is, and what your responsibilities are. Within that, there is huge scope to set objectives within the role, and to shape what it might be in a future constitution.

Landa2

MonaghanPenguin wrote: »

I had to leave early but just came from the presidential debate in the bar. I said after hustings that I knew who I was voting for. Now I don't. Policy and experience are part of the job, an important part but this job also requires empathy, civility and people skills. Something Dave and his team showed they have a complete lack of. They were nothing but a bunch of condescending bullies who I would find it very hard to vote for.

Ok, i am not going to hide the fact that i am on the aforementioned campaign team of Doyle, but the following comments and statements are my own personal opinion and not that of the David Doyle campaign team.

Having been at the Q&A session for its entirety and not leaving in the middle i feel that everyone on boards needs to know what happened at the session. the education and welfare positions were well contested with each candidate showing they were a good fit for the job. My personal opinion was that one candidate outshone the others, but in saying that i am biased. But this is not the session that the OP is referencing. Onto the presidential Q&A session.

Initially it started with the short speeches, during which i personally was noting down the holes in one of the candidates policies.. As i said i am on Dave's Campaign team.. Following the speeches the Q&A started, the first few questions were directed at a specific candidate, which said candidate failed to actually answer, these questions were based on one section of that candidates policy which clearly wasn't researched at all, justified by said candidate responding finally with "i didn't realize that". Unfortunately this is not where the questions ended, the following 20 minutes or so were all containing questions directed to the same candidate and yes one of Doyle's team might have taken things a little far but on the subject matter he was entitled to his own opinion as the subject matter was of his own expertise. Following this came questions from around the audience that seemed to also poke holes in said candidates policy which leads me to question why the OP would specifically target his anger at Dave's campaign team, now agreed that one member was overboard but to tar everyone with the same brush is a little overboard in my opinion.

This was then followed by said candidates now bolstered campaign team posing questions towards Doyle. A lot of these questions seemed to be repeating themselves, and Doyle may have reacted badly when asked the same question for the third time. Ok, they might not of been at the start of the session for Doyle's initial answer but they were definitely in attendance for the second time he had to answer the question that was post by a Union Executive member. Doyle also made a remark about another candidates policies which may have been construed as underhanded and in any other circumstance it would have been, but it is my understanding that this session was being run as an open debate of all candidates involved and it is my opinion that each candidate had a right to their own opinions. Now again, it was a cheap dig, but one that could and probably should have been defended but wasn't.

Finally (not the least, but following the main reasons i can see) there was the debate on the Irish Language policies of the candidates, and i would like to also mention that this was not brought up by any of Doyle's campaign team or Doyle's direct support. One candidate was questioned on why they seem to have a fledgling policy on Irish Language in DCU, that only surfaced in the last 24 hours, when Doyle has had a policy regarding it since the inception of his campaign. This then lead to a heated discussion between Doyle and one of the other candidates about the inaccuracies of that candidates policy and research that was undertaken.. this discussion was also concluded with said candidate admitting defeat and finishing with "I stand corrected".

MonaghanPenguin wrote: »

So after I got back from the cinema I called into the bar and couldn't help but voice, unfortunately a little hot headedly, my opinion to Dave. I think my exact words were that he was a disgrace. The reply of one of the aforementioned cronies? "Shut the f**k up and don't be so childish" and he also asked me if I would care to "step outside". Being that I was someone who was scheduled to sit at polling stations (I resigned after this incident) I plan to make a formal complaint about the intimidating behaviour of Dave's team.

Ok, i was going to place no comment on this until the morning when i had time to calm down. but as its been brought up i will comment on it. The "cronie" in question here was in fact myself. The OP stormed into the bar and very hot headedly attacked Doyle about his performance in the earlier Q&A session, following this i did indeed ask the OP to step outside but this was only to talk not what the OP may have implied. For this i do have to apologize, i do see now that i may have reacted to this outburst in a manner that did not help the situation and i could have dealt with it with more restraint than i did.

EDIT: As discussed above, i feel i should retract my conception as to why Doyle reacted badly in the debate, i had not properly sat down with Doyle and discussed the reasons for this. In a later post in this topic Doyle explains his actions which had nothing to do with question repitition but more to do with the whole atmosphere that Q&A Session had degraded to, with one of his own (former) campaign members being the catalyst.

toostrong

Hey everyone,

I'm going for the position of Science and Health Convenor. Just wanted to post a link to my facebook page all the info is on there! My manifesto is located in the discussions section.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/VOTE-ARMSTRONG-SCIENCE-AND-HEALTH-CONVENOR/104605712908343?ref=ts

Vote Armstrong!

andrew163

That David Doyle debate thing sounds potentially disappointing, does anyone have any recordings of any of it so we can make our own minds up about it? (I know there weren't any official recordings, any camera phones though?)

I'm not sure who I'll be voting for as president. It was going to be most likely David Doyle, it sounded like he had the most well thought out positions of the lot, but that may have been premature. The last thing anyone needs is a president with a god complex. If I had to vote right now (SU election at quarter to 4 in the morning? :pac: ), I'd probably take a leap of faith and go for Megan in the hope that she'll be hit with a dose of reality in the first few weeks (free society membership? what?) and turn out to be a good president.

As I said though, I'd like to know more of what exactly happened if at all possible. From someone without a massive conflict of interest. Hopefully it won't get buried in an avalanche of internet rage.

I would agree on there not being enough noise being made about campaigns and information. The one constant criticism about the union is how the SU executive is completely disconnected from students, you'd think people would focus in on the one person whose job it is to fix that problem.

johan

I was at the debate today, admittedly it didn't have my full attention, trying to manage the sound while the radio mic was wandering around getting too close to the speakers was fun.

I really didn't cop this till afterwards, but I agree with MonaghanPenguin the atmosphere in the bar today was pretty tense, Dave's team kept coming back to certain polices of Megan's and attacking them, even when other people asked questions on another topic they shot right back to certain topics.

Personally I also don't agree with one of the policies they kept coming back to and attacking, the 1 free clubs and socs membership to every first year who joins, and having individual Clubs and Socs fund this. But hey it is a reasonably idea, certainly beneficial to the whole first year experience, but unimplementable in my view, (2 years experience on the SPC and been round the block in DCU a fair few times now)
The crux is that even as Dave and his team were punching holes in it, even they don't know the actual problem behind this, The OSL set the prices for membership of clubs and socs, not the SPC / SCC / Union or the individual clubs and socs and they require that this money is collected from every member.

Dave's general behaviour towards Megan as the debate went on, was as MonaghanPenguin points out, very disrespectful, jumping up as she finished talking to immediately rebut her points, at one point not even bothering to get out of his seat, he actually cut her off mid sentence.

Landa points out that Megan's friends picked holes in his policies, and asked similar questions about it at several stages, well I think they gave as good as they got.

Final point, landa, and all, but for anyone who doesn't know him, he's built like a tank, if you asked me to take it outside in the middle of an argument with you I'd want the army between me and you. At least you apologized.

lil_cain

andrew163 wrote: »

As I said though, I'd like to know more of what exactly happened if at all possible. From someone without a massive conflict of interest. Hopefully it won't get buried in an avalanche of internet rage.

I think Niall is probably the most unbiased source in the University. If anything, his biases would lie towards David Doyle, rather than against them.

Hauk

@IRLANDE

PRE-RESIGN PLZ.

@MonaghanPenguin

Fair play to ya. I won't bother voting for him now.

johan wrote: »

Final point, landa, and all, but for anyone who doesn't know him, he's built like a tank, if you asked me to take it outside in the middle of an argument with you I'd want the army between me and you. At least you apologized.

Jesus, I think what johan wants to say is that Landa is very big guy, and would like an army between him and Landa if a fight ever broke out.

Anything else would be unfactual.

MonaghanPenguin

I'm not going to get into any "he said -she said" discussion with Landa, it's not productive. I'm just going to address the main points he has made.

He asks why my ire is directed at Dave's entire team not just one individual. I have a certain amount of sympathy for him asking that question, I've been involved in a lot of campaigns in my time and it can be hard to distance yourself sometimes and hard to take an objective look at what is going on.

So let me tell you how it looked from someone on the outside.

One person (who you admit yourself went too far) in your team started trying to bully and harass, specifically targeting one candidate. None of you cried stop, none of you seemed to realise how horrible it was. No, like sheep in a herd you either joined in or sat back and let it happen. At one stage there was a flurry of Dave supporters who couldn't wait to be the next one to deliver that knock out blow. You yourself, when one issue, namely extended exam opening hours for the library, had been done to death, got into almost an individual debate with Megan. You say that she conceded that she was wrong on these issues. That makes it sound lovely and rosey, you guys made your points, she said she was wrong. Not how it happened, as long as Megan was standing and saying anything you kept punching and punching.

You're right, some more of Megan's supporters arrived half way during the debate, mainly because of word starting to spread about what was happening and how disgusting you all looked. And I mean it was really disgusting. You made it sound like she was almost the sinister one having her support in the audience swell suddenly but in honesty it was people coming to their friend's aid when she needed them. And yes then they asked a question or two aimed at Dave's policies, but they conducted themselves with proper civility, a question was asked, Dave answered it, move on. Trying to compare that with how you guys were behaving towards her is like chalk and cheese.

Thirdly, you are honestly going to say that Dave's attitude on stage was due to him being asked the same question three times? Firstly his attitude started long long before that happened. And secondly, honestly, being asked the same question three times is an excuse for knobish behaviour of the highest order? Not a hope my friend. I've done this job, I've had a lot worse thrown at me than Dave did last night, if he couldn't handle that without reverting to behaviour you'd expect in a primary school playground then he'll never be able to handle the job.

Do we really think that a bully is the president we want next year? How is he going to react in Union Council if a Class Rep disagrees with him, will he cut down that student too, will he try and make them feel stupid for making a point and questioning him? No from what I saw, I wouldn't want him having any sort of power, if this is his reaction when he's merely running for office.

Finally I accept your apology for the incident in the bar afterwards. Admittedly I might have handled it a little better as I said in my original post. The idea however that in an argument in a pub you can ask the other person to "step outside" and mean it any other way than the way in which I took it is laughable.

andrew163

lil_cain wrote: »

I think Niall is probably the most unbiased source in the University. If anything, his biases would lie towards David Doyle, rather than against them.

I didn't mean to imply that he was biased, just that things can sometimes come across in an exaggerated way on boards.ie, especially when posted within only a few hours of the incident happening. Posting about it the next morning and still sounding as shocked as he was last night adds to the credibility of his story, though.

The "conflict of interest" thing was aimed at Landa2 (for obvious reasons - being on the campaign team).

Lennie353

President - After witnessing the behavior of David Doyle and his campaign team at the debate yesterday I'll most definitely be voting Megan. Disgraceful display and I feel she handled herself excellently in spite of it.

Campaigns & Information - I was so unsure about this one until Wednesday's hustings. It quickly became clear that Maeve would be far superior for the position. She was first up for the vast majority of questions and handled it excellently, very clear she knows her stuff. A lot of Collies answers just seemed to repeat what Maeve had just said.

Also Maeve seems so much more approachable. Something about Collie and his campaign team just doesnt sit right with me.

Education & Welfare - All the candidates for this seem a good fit and I still have to make my mind up. Roll on next week.

Garseys

Wow I can't believe that candidates campaign team would pick apart someone like that.

on a different note: Looks like the Science and Health Convenor is a 2 horse race after hustings.

candysapple

I couldn't believe the behaviour of Team Doyle yesterday. I was extremely disappointed as his manifesto showed great promise. While I understand it is difficult to distance yourself from your supporters I believe that his failure to acknowledge how inappropriate their behaviour was only worked to damage his campaign. If he can't stand up to his friends and supporters how is he going to deal with anyone who opposes him? Even if he had made a general statement saying that those activities wouldn't be welcomed by any of the candidates it would have been better than his silence (which I'm personally taking to mean he had no problem with it). That one of his supporters has come on here saying they understand his frustration at having to answer the same question 3 times (particularly because some people had already heard he previous answers) is offensive. How is he supposed to deal with the repeated questions of students or people seeking clarification because his answer wasn't clear?
In saying this I still think he has the best approach to the position. His goals appear to mostly be realistic and while Megan made some good points she still seems to has a loose understanding of the role. Voting for Megan just to prove a point is unlikely to result in the better candidate winning. I was also disappointed that none of the candidates seem to have researched their competitors manifestos properly. Many of the claims of why he/she was wrong was based on assumptions and not facts.
Finally where was Ciaran for this? A massive opportunity to step up and prove yourself capable mediator and that you can do more than be a nice guy and organise events was wasted by him.

Insulting_Bitch

Interestingly enough 'Nudie' Hughes' supporters have put me off voting for him.

Everywhere there is a few of them all you hear is shrill screams and giggles. Let's face it, I would prefer have some supporters ask a few decent questions of a another candidate then that. (In saying that I was not at the debate so cannot comment on the tone of the questioning but reckon that she should have been questioned extensively if her answering was poor. The debate after all is an opportunity to see how well or not the person has planned out their manifesto realistically. I could run and promise the sun, the moon and the stars and not deliver a single thing.)

Back to 'Nudies' suppporters, don't start screaming the minute he walks into a room. This will only set to put me right off him. I will read his manifesto, I will read the others, I will decide myself who I will vote for based on policy. Scream into people's face and generally encroach on space and you will lose my vote immediately.

Canvass, of course.
Canvass shamelessly and annoyingly, no.

And guys at least try to read the type of person you are canvassing too. I don't want to hear how 'super' he will be or how many GAA things he has done. If I am wearing any form of GAA clothing, fair game, and for the love of God stop saying LOL.

MonaghanPenguin

you can have all the great policies in the world but if you don't have the people skills required you'll never get them done.

And here's the rub, there was nothing wrong with Megan's policies, ok how she planned to achieve them could be picked at, but the core idea was fine. Take one example, library opening times. Are you going to say that better library access during exam time is a bad idea? Plus she'd already met with library staff to discuss how this could be done. If you start with that as a good premise, it's not a bad policy, she had flaws in the logistics, but Dave wasn't content to just knock those flaws, he had to try and make her look stupid too.

And if I can be honest about all three campaigns. None of them fully know what they're talking about. I could pick apart Dave's manifesto if I wanted but I won't because I've been there, I've run for President, and everything you think you know before you go in there and do the job is wrong. It's a hugely different experience once you're in that job. But you know what, that's fine, because people learn and grow into these jobs. As a much smarter than me Deputy President once said to me "you can never tell who'll be a good president, you can only ever tell the people who would be bad ones."

Would Ciaran or Megan be a good President, I don't know. Would Dave be a bad one? Yes.

goodgodholmes

Cid-Highwind wrote: »

Indeed. This is a real problem every year, debates etc. focus on the Presidential candidates while the other sabbatical officers also have very important roles they get very little space to debate their ideas


While Maeve has said she will change things I think that collie would too, based on what little I've seen.

What's important is how they want to change it. The fact is that we have a real problem with a divide between 'the union' and 'the students'. This is not a problem that can be solved over night, but the candidate that said the campaigns we're doing relatively fine and presented a real plan to work on information (both ways) would get my vote.

Hi Cid-Highwind,

Maeve here.

The point you make above about the divide between the Union and the students is a true one, and one that I have experienced myself. I only got involved with the Union this year, having a society-only background before that, and when I wasn't involved, I didn't think it was going to be easy to get involved. I have to say I agree with your point about campaigns being okay for the most part (that being said I do have more ideas for new campaigns), and that information is the most important part of the job.

My main objectives for the year (superceding all implementation ideas mentioned on my manifesto), if I were elected as Campaigns and Information Officer, would be:
- A more informed student body, from a more informative and transparent Union
- Building up a feeling of trust between the student body and the Union, by proactively reaching out to students via means that interest them.
- Ensuring all faculties are equally well covered by campaigns and information

Transparency is key. The divide between "the students" and "the union" exists because of a lack of information. The majority of students have no idea how they are being represented. This is why my manifesto contains a new idea - the plan to implement a tradition of video blogging through the Executive; that is, members of the executive taking 5 minutes to talk to a webcam and post it on Facebook, after meetings between the Union (where the general student body has been represented by a member of the Executive) and University committees. This will keep students in the loop with what the Union is doing, and how they are being represented. If elected, I will be pushing the Executive out of the offices, and into the faculty buildings far more. I think there should be a weekly Convenors Q&A where the Convenors set up a stand in their faculty building for an hour or two a week, wherein they answer questions about the Union, and take in any problems or complaints, to put them in the heart of where students need them, to make the position of Convenor more proactive, and to blur the lines between "the students" and "the union".

Information can't just work in one direction, the Union needs be more able to listen to the needs of the students and to bring this back to the executive. We need a communication officer far more than a campaigns and information officer. We have formal communication structures, through the union council/class rep system etc., and while there's plenty of scope for improving them what needs to really be developed is an informal communication structure. I'd bet any money that if the campaigns and information officer sat in the Henry Grattan every Wednesday they would get questions and feedback that would never make it up to 'the office', and the benefit of it would be enormous.

I absolutely agree. Before running, as you have seen in my manifesto, I conducted a cross-faculty survey to gauge perceptions of the Union in different faculty buildings. I found that, in faculty buildings further away from the Hub, a majority of students weren't particularly interested in Union campaigns, but seemed very engaged when talking about their education. I figured out pretty quickly that the best way to make an impact on these students, is via discussion on their education.

This is why I proposed an all-student survey (in conjunction with the Education and Welfare officer), where students outline what they feel is missing from their course, the Union could approach faculty deans and programme board chairs to suggest changes, and if they will not entertain the ideas, the Union could fund extra tutorials or workshops from outside sources. This wouldn't require a lot of funding, as it would only need to happen once a semester or so. The benefits of this are twofold: enhanced education, and building a feeling of basic trust of the union from students who were previously quite alienated, meaning that future Union campaigns would have greater impact on these previously apathetic students.

I also believe that more interactive campaigns are needed. A student will get a lot more benefit from a free STI screen during SHAG week than they will reading about getting tested in Campus magazine, and even more from attending a financial management and planning seminar than from an article written in a magazine.

My priorities are outlined above. I wanted to increase the transparency of the Union, therefore making the flow of information, and indeed the Union's campaigns, more effective.

Policy aside, I want to do this because I know how DCU can change people's lives for the better. It has the potential to really make people come into their own, and set them up for the person they are going to be long after they have left. I'm doing this because I know what this place can do for people, and I recognise that apathy is a big problem facing the Union. It is in the hands of the Campaigns and Information Officer to try to change this apathetic mentality, and because I know how great this place can be for people, I have the drive to change this mentality through whatever means possible, to ensure that people get not only an academic education, but personal one as well.

I have not written anything in my manifesto that I am not sure is achieveable. I know this is all doable in one term of office, and I know that if I am elected, I will make a real difference in the flow of information in DCU.

Vote Maeve McQuillan on Tuesday and Wednesday, for a better Campaigns and Information Office.

manlad

In order

1# Megan- Seems the most suitable candidate, talks more sense than the other two

2# Nudie- popular guy about campus but puts too much emphasis on making DCU a funner place. Would rather someone concentrate on the education side of things more so

3# Dave- Listened to the interview on radio, don't know the guy but he seemed rather arrogant and didn't like his canvassing methods used. Also the debate in the bar hasn't done him any favours. The job of president also comes with respect, which i dont think he showed much off

lithiumoxide

This does not bode well for David I wasn't there, but judging by what I'm reading things seemed pretty nasty

Also, can part-time postgrads vote?

thusspakeblixa

I might just ask, as someone on the Jackie Fox campaign team, what way are Humanities students going to vote?

public_enemy

It's a pity to see things have gone this way.

I know Dave's always been opinionated and something of a firebrand at times but he still seemed the best person for the job. While some of his policies are a bit lofty, and no-one can ever implement everything they promise, he still seemed the most sensible and knowledgeable candidate. The more practical aspects of his union reform ideas could be very positive too.

I really don't see how I can vote for him after this incident though. If he and his team can't show respect for the other candidates then I don't feel he has the right attitude to the job. Conor Mortimer was a far more ludicrous candidate than anyone running this year, but his opponents were never so damning as this, at least not in public anyhow. A president needs to be approachable and respectful, and not just towards other students. What if he were to take this attitude into his dealings with college officials next year? He could land the union in a hole that it would take years to crawl out of.

Dave needs to issue an apology or response of some sort to this, and quickly too. I know boards doesn't count for many votes, but word spreads and this could easily have the legs to ruin his campaign.

thatswatshesaid

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

I might just ask, as someone on the Jackie Fox campaign team, what way are Humanities students going to vote?

If you read the manifestos Dara McGann is the only one with actual clear outlines of what he wants to do as Humanities convenor. I think the other two think it would be nice to help out, but when it comes to fighting the budget cuts that are facing so many courses they are just not up to speed. I wouldn't trust either of them to sit on the various committees a convenor has to and fight successfully for the students. While Jackie and Adam seem like very nice people I feel they're just too placid. When it comes to the social side, and working with class reps, none of the candidates besides Dara seems to have experience organising events with a group like the union, or dealing with the various problems that would come under their responsibility. I don't see either of them having the experience or the get up and go to deal with large issues, or be a leader.

Joe_Bloggs_2010

Wow i a actuallly only joined this thing because ive heard how out of hand some of the comments on this have become but i didnt believe that until now!!

I guess that some peoples user names on this just explains it all!

I dont know any of the canidates for president personally but fair play to Megan Nudy and Dave because it looks like this has just become about ripping their manifestos to shreds! As if that wasnt enough people are actually insulting them personally and then their "supporters"?

Has everyone forgotten that they are trying to make DCU a better place but instead of encouraging people to actually try to do this you are putting them off wanting to even try as they will personally be criticised and torn to shreds! Also this is a college election!

Fair play to all 3 of yas cos i dont have the balls to run for it!!

Also people that are saying they want the President to focus more on the educational issues, this is the job of the Education and Welfare officer and if you have a specific course/subject then you go to the corresponding convenor!!

Best of luck to everyone running!

thusspakeblixa

thatswatshesaid wrote: »

If you read the manifestos Dara McGann is the only one with actual clear outlines of what he wants to do as Humanities convenor. I think the other two think it would be nice to help out, but when it comes to fighting the budget cuts that are facing so many courses they are just not up to speed. I wouldn't trust either of them to sit on the various committees a convenor has to and fight successfully for the students. While Jackie and Adam seem like very nice people I feel they're just too placid. When it comes to the social side, and working with class reps, none of the candidates besides Dara seems to have experience organising events with a group like the union, or dealing with the various problems that would come under their responsibility. I don't see either of them having the experience or the get up and go to deal with large issues, or be a leader.

I'll respectfully disagree.
I don't recall any Humanities social events in the previous year which Dara organised.
I'd say it's fairly obvious who I'm going to advocate but just think of which of the three seem more approachable.
IMO experience isn't a big deal when the majority of other people in the Union have never held their respective positions.

gizmo

Joe_Bloggs_2010 wrote: »

Also people that are saying they want the President to focus more on the educational issues, this is the job of the Education and Welfare officer and if you have a specific course/subject then you go to the corresponding convenor!!

Incorrect, the President will sit with the Edu & Welfare officer at many of the important meetings I've mentioned earlier. On top of this they'll also handle similar cases quite often. As for the Convener issue, who do you think they will go to for some of the more serious issues? At the end of the day the SU exec needs to operate as a team but I'd still want to see the elected President be capable in the areas of responsibility for the other members.

Speaking of roles, regarding people's assumption that the President's primary responsibility is organising events etc... you are aware that there is a full time member of staff paid to do that - Shea McNelis - in the aptly name position of Events Manager?

Ria2

I don't think Doyle should suffer due to things his campaign team said at the debate. One of my friends (who could be technically on my team.I haven't been very technical about the whole thing) took down one of my opponent's posters in an effort to help me. I told her straight away to put it back and that it was hugely unfair and against all rules. At that exact time, he walked by and saw exactly what was going on. If he had not heard me tell her to put it back, he could easily have thought I was trying to sabotage his campaign. The situation was rectified and I'm pretty sure there are no hard feelings but I could have easily gotten into trouble over something a friend of mine did. This would not have been fair and I think the same applies in Dave’s case. I, myself, was not there for the entire debate last night so I don’t have first-hand information, but I don’t think he should be the subject of this argument when (as far as I can tell) most of the things people have problems with, are things his friends and campaign team said.

MonaghanPenguin wrote: »

What happened next was utterly unbelievable. Dave's team went right on the attack against Megan. I don't mind someone attacking a policy but it was like five or six questions in a row picking at flaws in every aspect of her policy. This wasn't an attempt to beat her, it was an attempt to belittle her and intimidate her and basically came with the attitude of "you stupid little girl who do you think you are thinking you can do this man's job?". Note these weren't directed at her and Ciaran, they were going after her alone. Relentlessly.

I was one of the first to ask Meg a question about her library policy and I was in no way trying to belittle her, nor am I on Dave’s campaign team. I do apologize if she felt that way but I genuinely wanted to hear her ideas about the policy in depth. I wasn’t sure if she had thought it through and wondered if she had realised the problems with the policy.

david.doyle

First of all, I can't log into my own boards account at the moment but let me assure you that this is David Doyle (Irlande).

I want to address some of the issues that have been discussed in this thread arising from the debate last night. Let me say that I genuinely and completely agree with the comments of Monaghan Penguin. The actions of a member of my team were completely out of line, insulting at best and extremely inappropriate for both the format of the debate, and general decency. I do, however, take full responsibilty for his actions but let me assure you that he has since been disciplined and removed from my campaign team.

The manner in which questions were asked by this individual were irresponsible and against my expressed wishes. Before the debate, I had discussed questioning with my team and expressly told all to refrain from individually targetted questions if they had anything to ask. Also, as anyone who knows the individual would understand, I specifically requested he refrain from asking any questions regarding specific policy, from badgering any candidate and keep his opinions to himself. Immediately after the debate, these are all issues I confronted him on.

The reason that I didn't intervene while I was on stage was that I had thought it was inappropriate and believed he would cop himself on and withdraw from his ridiculous behaviour. The benefit of heindsight shows
me now that I really should have requested the mic and asked him to get the **** out. (A sentiment I assure you I expressed afterwards.)

With regards my own personal behaviour, I fully accept that I lost my cool and acted in an inappropriate way but the suggestion that this was because I was 'asked a question three times' is ridiculous despite this point being raised by a member of my team. I became overly aggitated with the persistent abuse candidates received by the aforementioned member of my team.

I in no way meant any disrespect to Megan, her supporters, members of the audience or any student of DCU. By losing my cool over this
I became snappy in answering questions and at times disrespectful to those who asked and to the other candidates. As anyone who knows me can attest to, all I wanted last night was a discussion and debate on the issues.

The only issue I take with the accounts of the debate is the insinuation that I 'spoke off mic' and 'jumped out of my seat' after Megan had spoken.
Any time I took the microphone, I had first cleared it with the chairperson and even been introduced, whether it be simply with 'and David you wanted to say something?'. The only point at which the chairperson had to intervene was when he asked that I 'be nice to the audience now please' after which I immediately apologised. In terms of speaking 'off mic', this was completely inappropriate and disrespectful. I was unsure as to the format of the back and forth to take place as this was a Q&A debate, and as I'm sure you will remember this particular incident was early in the discussion and never repeated. Off Mic, the only thing I said
or point I made was that: 'this already exists, it's legally binding. Its a legal thing.' regarding the issue of the Irish language in Campus Residence.

I fully understand that an off-microphone remark was irresponsible and could be perceived as intimidating, but it was never intended this way.

I can only hope that you would all accept my apology and decide for yourself as to the events which took place. I in no way meant any disrespect to Megan or Ciaran and completely apologise for the actions of a member of my team which I completely agree with MonaghanPenguin were a disgrace.

Katniss everMean

david.doyle wrote: »

I do, however, take full responsibilty for his actions but let me assure you that he has since been disciplined and removed from my campaign team.

May I ask how exactly you "disciplined" a friend? Why do I image leather and ropes here..

blacon

This has been blown way out of proportion.

Monaghan Penguin, you spoke of the Doyle Campaign team creating a sympathy vote for Megan. It is my opinion that this sympathy vote has only been created by your complaints. You have made this whole thing seem far worse than it was, and that is a fact.

I'd like to point out that Megan's team were doing the exact same as Doyle's team, i.e trying to find holes in Doyles manifesto and asking him awkward questions. The fact remains that there are simply more holes in Megans manifesto than Doyles, so more questions were aimed at Megan.
Do you really think that Megans team wouldn't have gone through Doyle like a hot knife through butter if they had the ammunition to do so?

The DCU SU will be a sorry place next year if votes are swayed by this nonsense. The fact remains that if Megan was 'nearly brought to tears' by the questions she was asked yesterday, she simply would not be able to stand up for students in the many confrontations she would have as SU President.

blacon

I really would like to emphasize that if Megans team did have ammunition against Dave, they would have used it. People have to realise that. They challenged Dave a few times and were less than civil.