Upcoming bye-election discussion - Mod instruction post #6. Please read carefully.

chucknorris

Godge wrote: »

From what I understand, David McGuinness is on the board of both schools (probably thanks to FF connections) but the other councillors are not. He is obviously in a position to use his influence when the others are not so the question about the other candidates is not relevant.

However, clarity should be provided on what McGuinness has or has not done.

Godge your completely wrong with your innuendo. David is a school teacher and has been before he was elected as a Councillor in 2009.
Surely he is appropriate for those voluntary roles?

Anyway, I'll clarify what has been done by anyone. It is in the links supplied but the poster was very selective on who he/she mentioned.

HERE YOU GO:



"We have also been discussing this issue with David McGuinness from Fianna Fail, David is a Board of Management member of both schools and has committed to talking to the VEC and the Dept of Education on our behalf. He has also brought it to the attention of both Michael Martin and Brendan Smith in Fianna Fail who are also making representations on our behalf."

"April - RRA meets Brian Lenihan, Leo Varadkar and Joan Burton - all express surprise at the exclusion of Riverwood from the CCC catchment area. They commit to talking to the VEC on our behalf."

"We met with Leo Varadkar last week, he agreed to pass on our concerns to the VEC but wasn't prepared to canvas on our behalf, he did note that it was odd that Riverwood has been excluded from the CCC Catchment area."

"The group has met with Brian Lenihan and will be meeting the VEC and LCC and CCC principals after Easter.

We appreciate the emails that people have sent off to the VEC and various representatives."


So all the fore mentioned have made representations but the decision on this is totally out side the remit of individuals, be it on a board or not. There is civil servants, high paid ones that make the decision regardless of Leo's, Brian's or David's representations.

As I say, a bit of balance.

chucknorris

chucknorris wrote: »

Godge your completely wrong with your innuendo. David is a school teacher and has been before he was elected as a Councillor in 2009.
Surely he is appropriate for those voluntary roles?

Anyway, I'll clarify what has been done by anyone. It is in the links supplied but the poster was very selective on who he/she mentioned.

HERE YOU GO:



"We have also been discussing this issue with David McGuinness from Fianna Fail, David is a Board of Management member of both schools and has committed to talking to the VEC and the Dept of Education on our behalf. He has also brought it to the attention of both Michael Martin and Brendan Smith in Fianna Fail who are also making representations on our behalf."

"April - RRA meets Brian Lenihan, Leo Varadkar and Joan Burton - all express surprise at the exclusion of Riverwood from the CCC catchment area. They commit to talking to the VEC on our behalf."

"We met with Leo Varadkar last week, he agreed to pass on our concerns to the VEC but wasn't prepared to canvas on our behalf, he did note that it was odd that Riverwood has been excluded from the CCC Catchment area."

"The group has met with Brian Lenihan and will be meeting the VEC and LCC and CCC principals after Easter.

We appreciate the emails that people have sent off to the VEC and various representatives."


So all the fore mentioned have made representations but the decision on this is totally out side the remit of individuals, be it on a board or not. There is civil servants, high paid ones that make the decision regardless of Leo's, Brian's or David's representations.

As I say, a bit of balance.

Just for clarification and you may miss it in that text if you quickly sweep through, but, only Leo Varadkar was UNWILLING to canvas on your behalf.

PS: I want to be a MOD

BostonB

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but...

Castleknock Community College is part of the County Dublin Vocational Education Committee (Co Dublin V.E.C.)

http://www.castleknockcc.ie/admissions_policies.htm

My understanding is the catchment is set by, VEC and both LCC and CCC head masters. The problem with LCC is multifaceted. In no order of priority.

Its got no track record of results. Its not done a leaving yet afaik. CC has a great record.
Its not built yet, the temp buildings are nowhere near the area. IE you can't walk to it easily.
Riverwood is closer to CCC than most of the other areas remaining in the catchment. The other kids will have to pass through Riverwood to get to CCC. They currently bus kids to CCC. You can walk from Riverwood in 10 mins.
The kids in Riverwood, will not go to school with their local peers most of who will go to CCC. LCC isn't really in the natural boundary. Most of the kids attending LCC won't in the Riverwood area.

Estates built after Riverwood go to CCC. So people can move into the area and displace people who been there for a decade or more. You could move (if you weren't stuck and many are) into an area further away from riverwood and get into the catchment. I think some of renters have started to do this. Thats the great irony, is the people most rooted to the area/community, are the one being excluded from it.

The big problem here is that CCC was meant to be in Castleknock. They objected to it, so it was moved to its current location. But they kept the catchment. They continued to do this, build schools out of their catchment so you have loads of people who can't go to their most logically nearest school. Considering the traffic problems in the area, creating a situation where theres loads of kids being buses all over, and cars dropping kids all over. Its a mess.

Ultimately its the kids and family life that will suffer.

daymobrew

chucknorris wrote: »

I know quite allot about this subject. Just for the sake of getting some understanding on political positions are you saying David refused to help, Ignored you, made no representations or just didn't reply. Please be clear with that. I'll call you out on that if you say it is so.

I have searched the mail box for Riverwood Residents Association. There are 3 emails from David, one this morning, after my post. One had a reply from Marie Griffin, Education Officer of VEC. The other said he'd look into things (I believe that he should already be very familiar with the decisions and how they came about).

What would you "call me out" on??

chucknorris wrote: »

What did Ruth Coppinger, Patrick Nulty, Paul Donnelly, Rodric o'Gormon and Eithne Loftus do?

Eithne directed us to the respective BOMs. Roderic offered to assist as local Green Party rep. I do not see any emails from Ruth Coppinger, Paul Donnelly or Patrick Nulty (we would have emailed Cllr Peggy Hamill).

chucknorris wrote: »

It is in the links supplied but the poster was very selective on who he/she mentioned.

I singled David McGuinness out because of his position on all 3 boards (CCC, LCC, VEC). And I knew that it would get a quick response from you. :P

chucknorris wrote: »

So all the fore mentioned have made representations but the decision on this is totally out side the remit of individuals, be it on a board or not. There is civil servants, high paid ones that make the decision regardless of Leo's, Brian's or David's representations.

Everyone is answerable to the BOM.

chucknorris wrote: »

Just for clarification and you may miss it in that text if you quickly sweep through, but, only Leo Varadkar was UNWILLING to canvas on your behalf.

True. Eithne's recent leaflet focusses on LCC.

Godge wrote: »

What is the problem with Luttrellstown Community College? This is an honest query that I just don't seem to be able to understand from the information provided. I get that residents believe CCC is more convenient but apart from that why is LCC not suitable?

Boston B has answered that question much more completely than I could have. I agree with everything in that post.

BostonB

My own experience of school is of being chopped from school to school as places allowed and ultimately going to secondary a long way from my home area. School life thus being very disjoint and separate from home and my peers and social life in the area.

Thus my opinion in that living in an area, and going to school locally, an then saying with my peers all the way through school, has the best stability and thus the best experience (and results). I accept some may feel differently.

I would hope I would be able to avoid my experience for my own family, but it seems, in the current system, no matter how long I live in a area, or how close to a school, the catchments can be chopped and changed at a whim. So really its completely out of my hands. At least in D.15. Its not like this hasn't happened before either. We had it with the primary schools too.

So excuse me if I'm extremely dismissive of electioneering on education issues, policies. Its completely removed the reality on the ground. In my opinion.

daymobrew

daymobrew wrote: »

I have searched the mail box for Riverwood Residents Association. There are 3 emails from David, one this morning, after my post. One had a reply from Marie Griffin, Education Officer of VEC. The other said he'd look into things (I believe that he should already be very familiar with the decisions and how they came about).

Another member of the Riverwood RA committee emailed me a short while ago to say that the subcommittee (formed to confront the CCC/LCC issue) has been in contact with David McGuinness over the last two weeks and he has arranged meetings with Deputies Brendan Smith and Micheal Martin.

David was cc'd in an email from the Riverwood RA back in April and then directly on May 24th. Why the delay in reacting?

Gaspode

chucknorris wrote: »

PS: I want to be a MOD

Sorry, Amp Test failed.

Godge

chucknorris wrote: »

So all the fore mentioned have made representations but the decision on this is totally out side the remit of individuals, be it on a board or not. There is civil servants, high paid ones that make the decision regardless of Leo's, Brian's or David's representations.

As I say, a bit of balance.

Firstly, David McGuinness is the only candidate on the board of the VEC, none of the others have the influence that he has on this issue. That is a fact.

Secondly, the powers of the VEC are set out in legislation, the VEC Act 2001. The powers of the committee (of which Mr. McGuinness is a member) are clearly set out in Section 9 of the Act


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0023/sec0009.html#sec9


These include "(a) plan, coordinate and review the provision of education and services ancillary thereto in recognised schools and centres for education established or maintained by that committee". Other functions reserved to the committee include the making of a service plan and the making of an education plan. Such plans should set out the recruitment policies and the catchment areas.

It might be true to state that an officer of the VEC (who by the way is not a civil servant) prepares the plan but it is the committee ultimately who can amend the plans before adopting them. The question is whether Mr. McGuinness has proposed amendments at the committee level to the recruitment policy as he is the only candidate in a position to do so.

Finally, nobody has yet told me which is the area to lose out if Riverwood are successful. The whole thing sounds like a politician (or politicians) ensuring that they keep both sides happy.

Godge

BostonB wrote: »

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but...



http://www.castleknockcc.ie/admissions_policies.htm

My understanding is the catchment is set by, VEC and both LCC and CCC head masters. The problem with LCC is multifaceted. In no order of priority.

Its got no track record of results. Its not done a leaving yet afaik. CC has a great record.
Its not built yet, the temp buildings are nowhere near the area. IE you can't walk to it easily.
Riverwood is closer to CCC than most of the other areas remaining in the catchment. The other kids will have to pass through Riverwood to get to CCC. They currently bus kids to CCC. You can walk from Riverwood in 10 mins.
The kids in Riverwood, will not go to school with their local peers most of who will go to CCC. LCC isn't really in the natural boundary. Most of the kids attending LCC won't in the Riverwood area.

Estates built after Riverwood go to CCC. So people can move into the area and displace people who been there for a decade or more. You could move (if you weren't stuck and many are) into an area further away from riverwood and get into the catchment. I think some of renters have started to do this. Thats the great irony, is the people most rooted to the area/community, are the one being excluded from it.

The big problem here is that CCC was meant to be in Castleknock. They objected to it, so it was moved to its current location. But they kept the catchment. They continued to do this, build schools out of their catchment so you have loads of people who can't go to their most logically nearest school. Considering the traffic problems in the area, creating a situation where theres loads of kids being buses all over, and cars dropping kids all over. Its a mess.

Ultimately its the kids and family life that will suffer.

Ok, that is the answer to my question, we all want our children to go to the school that best suits but are not happy if it is a different school for which we are in the catchment area. Fair enough.

I am not familiar enough with the geographical boundaries of the catchment area to be able to discuss it in more detail (some bits of your explanation don't quite make sense) but I would like to know which communities the Riverwood people are attempting to exclude from the CCC catchment area as you can't bring one area in without excluding another.

Seperate

daymobrew wrote: »

I have searched the mail box for Riverwood Residents Association. There are 3 emails from David, one this morning, after my post.

So he does reply to e-mails? I e-mailed the local councilors, and he's the only one who didn't reply to me. I took it that he was too busy knocking on doors.

athtrasna

Coppinger & Donnelly both have posters on the Waterville Ring Road despite having been asked to remove them a week ago. It's a private road, and these posters are illegally erected. Some of my neighbours are really annoyed with it...in the past once candidates have been contacted, the posters have come down. This pair don't think respecting our area is important :mad:

daymobrew

Godge wrote: »

Finally, nobody has yet told me which is the area to lose out if Riverwood are successful.

We don't care
Seriously though, the subcommittee has proposed alternative policies but they have all been immediately rejected by the VEC.

BostonB

Godge wrote: »

...I would like to know which communities the Riverwood people are attempting to exclude from the CCC catchment area as you can't bring one area in without excluding another.

You seem to want to vilify the area for some odd reason. Its really got little to do with physical area's but all to do with families and community.

They just don't want to be excluded. Actually you can include all areas, but you just have to go back to the original criteria and catchment. The previous criteria was you had to living in the area for 12+ years. The problem with this was you just couldn't move into the area and get place. Now (if you have the resources) you can.

The problem with this is, it makes it impossible to plan schooling for your family. If 10 or 20 families move in closer to the school, and you've been there for 20yrs, your family gets shunted out.

It doesn't seem right.

Godge

BostonB wrote: »

You seem to want to vilify the area for some odd reason. Its really got little to do with physical area's but all to do with families and community.

They just don't want to be excluded. Actually you can include all areas, but you just have to go back to the original criteria and catchment. The previous criteria was you had to living in the area for 12+ years. The problem with this was you just couldn't move into the area and get place. Now (if you have the resources) you can.

The problem with this is, it makes it impossible to plan schooling for your family. If 10 or 20 families move in closer to the school, and you've been there for 20yrs, your family gets shunted out.

It doesn't seem right.

No, I don't want to villify anyone. I am just asking questions. I see in this issue a mirror of the national debate. We know the budget deficit has to be cut but eveyone has their own thing that shouldn't be cut or taxed.

Similarly, the school can only take so many pupils and someone in some area has to be left out. I am trying to figure out who is right but haven't got the answers. Is it too much to ask for an open debate? Vague references to people moving in and catchment areas being changed is not answering.

As a country we have to learn that in every policy decision there are usually winners and losers. Deciding who deserves to be the winner is the difficult bit.

votecounts

Out of curiousity, has there been any polls in the local papers for this bye-election?

BostonB

Godge wrote: »

No, I don't want to villify anyone. I am just asking questions. I see in this issue a mirror of the national debate. We know the budget deficit has to be cut but eveyone has their own thing that shouldn't be cut or taxed.

Similarly, the school can only take so many pupils and someone in some area has to be left out. I am trying to figure out who is right but haven't got the answers. Is it too much to ask for an open debate? Vague references to people moving in and catchment areas being changed is not answering.

As a country we have to learn that in every policy decision there are usually winners and losers. Deciding who deserves to be the winner is the difficult bit.

Yes you did. Its a classic strawman argument. No new areas have been added. Basically they've made places for new and short term residents by reducing the existing catchment at the expense of the long term residents. Its queue jumping.

Your budget deficit isn't analogous. The implication is that the impact is the same for all. Where it obviously isn't. As a fixed charge for something doesn't have the same impact on someone with a high income as someone with a low income. Similarly if you move into an area, you can't have the same expectation of a school place, as a family who've been there for 20yrs. Its the same as expecting to get to the head of queue without queuing.

From an election point of view. Those longest in an area are the least likely to be moving out of it. So if you alienate them. Then getting their support in the future, may be difficult. When you look to the short term community, it might simply have left.

daymobrew

Godge wrote: »

The question is whether Mr. McGuinness has proposed amendments at the committee level to the recruitment policy as he is the only candidate in a position to do so.

I hope that chunknorris will provide answers and s/he is back online.

Murt10

FF surrender

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fianna-fail-gives-up-the-fight-for-lenihans-former-seat-2914402.html

amtc

I'm getting really annoyed that I have not been canvassed for either the Presidential or Bye Election. I'm seven years living in the same place and have never had a canvasser. When I asked, I was told that my area had too many non nationals (Waterville). I have been on the roll since I moved in and surely some type of constituency worker should be able to pick this up. It is a a house, not apartment by the way.

ThisRegard

Murt10 wrote: »

FF surrender

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fianna-fail-gives-up-the-fight-for-lenihans-former-seat-2914402.html

Maybe he can remove his newly erected posters now, there's a couple at the junction of the Snugborough Road and entrance to Corduff. They're in a pretty retarded position as they're low down and encroaching into the cycle lane ripe to take the head off a cyclist.

athtrasna

amtc wrote: »

I'm getting really annoyed that I have not been canvassed for either the Presidential or Bye Election. I'm seven years living in the same place and have never had a canvasser. When I asked, I was told that my area had too many non nationals (Waterville). I have been on the roll since I moved in and surely some type of constituency worker should be able to pick this up. It is a a house, not apartment by the way.

I hear ya! Apparently FF were in the area on Friday night but didn't come near us. Had a sorry I missed you card from FG some night last week and was actually canvassed by them during the General Election campaign this year, our first ever canvassers to the door in seven years.

In contrast, I know some people complained about the Coppinger posters at the entrance (inside so on private road) and her response was pretty much I have them on other private roads and nobody complained...and then she went and put more posters up at Spar. Talk about contempt for our area :mad:

daymobrew

Today I saw a few Eithne Loftus posters with a white-on-black sticker on them: "The only Government Candidate".

Eh, Nulty is a Labour candidate and they are in Government.
The cheek.

Also, is there a minimum height that posters must be?
I saw Nulty posters being attached to lamp posts on Saturday morning and some are barely 4 feet off the ground.

ThisRegard

athtrasna wrote: »

In contrast, I know some people complained about the Coppinger posters at the entrance (inside so on private road) and her response was pretty much I have them on other private roads and nobody complained...and then she went and put more posters up at Spar. Talk about contempt for our area :mad:

She's the physical manifestation of a spammer, she has destroyed Dublin 15 more so than anyone else between her election posters and the hospital campaign ones. I'll be pointedly looking out for anything from her party once the election has passed with the view to reporting her to the litter warden.

Arciphel

Her canvassers threw a load of crap in my letter box this morning, even though I have a sign on my letter box saying NO JUNK MAIL and a sign on my door saying NO CANVASSERS. I guess this means she has won my monthly junk mail lottery, as I am going to put her crap (and all the other crap I have that comes in the letter box from similar ignoramuses who can't read) and post it to her at her home address. Well worth the price of a stamp

Godge

BostonB wrote: »

Yes you did. Its a classic strawman argument. No new areas have been added. Basically they've made places for new and short term residents by reducing the existing catchment at the expense of the long term residents. Its queue jumping.

Your budget deficit isn't analogous. The implication is that the impact is the same for all. Where it obviously isn't. As a fixed charge for something doesn't have the same impact on someone with a high income as someone with a low income. Similarly if you move into an area, you can't have the same expectation of a school place, as a family who've been there for 20yrs. Its the same as expecting to get to the head of queue without queuing.

From an election point of view. Those longest in an area are the least likely to be moving out of it. So if you alienate them. Then getting their support in the future, may be difficult. When you look to the short term community, it might simply have left.

OK. I get it now. The catchment area has been reduced and the preference to long-term residents eliminated. That has been classed as queue-jumping. Is that correct?

Assuming it is, I can understand why the preference for long-term residents had to be dropped. Schools must abide by the Equality Act. In general, long-term residents are more likely to the be Irish and newer residents less like to be Irish. Such a policy would constitute indirect discrimination against non-nationals and would have to be removed. It cannot be reinstated for those reasons and is not a solution.

Now if that policy cannot be changed for the above reasons and a reduction in the catchment area is the way of balancing things out as a result of abolishing the preference for long-term residents, my net point remains, to put Riverwood back in, some other area needs to be taken out. Taken in conjunction with the need for the new LCC to have a catchment area, it is the only solution.

BTW, I have never lived in the catchment area (old or new) and have no direct interest in this, but it is clear there is an either/or situation. Either Riverwood is in and somewhere else out, or somewhere else is in and Riverwood out.

ArmaniJeanss

Anyone know whats taped over Loftus's posters in Castleknock village?
Saw it from the top of the bus but couldn't focus on all of it.

Seemed to be a white stripe with 'only government candidate', and something else in another stripe beneath it?

Did FG do it themselves or is it another candidate vandalising posters?

Turbulent Bill

Godge wrote: »

Assuming it is, I can understand why the preference for long-term residents had to be dropped. Schools must abide by the Equality Act. In general, long-term residents are more likely to the be Irish and newer residents less like to be Irish. Such a policy would constitute indirect discrimination against non-nationals and would have to be removed. It cannot be reinstated for those reasons and is not a solution.

Really?! It looks like a very tenuous reason for discrimination if that's the reason why the admissions policy has changed. As a community school it presumably doesn't discriminate against any member of the community whatever their nationality.

If they explicitly discriminated in their admissions policy that would be another story.

Godge

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

Really?! It looks like a very tenuous reason for discrimination if that's the reason why the admissions policy has changed. As a community school it presumably doesn't discriminate against any member of the community whatever their nationality.

If they explicitly discriminated in their admissions policy that would be another story.

Discrimination does not have to be explicit to be outlawed. See

http://www.mlaw.ie/news/equality-law-in-ireland where it is stated:

"Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may appear non-discriminatory adversely affects a particular group or class of persons"

So a policy favouring long-term residents does not appear discriminatory but when it (as it would) adversely affects non-nationals (as they mostly have arrived in the last few years) it is discriminatory on race grounds.

Morag

Godge wrote: »

Schools must abide by the Equality Act.

They don't they are exempt.

Arciphel

Chuck Norris has been very quiet of late, I wonder what is going on in the FF camp at the moment? Maybe he didn't like that Independent news article saying that the FF sages thought that McGuinness had no hope of winning the Dublin West seat....