ULFM

wnolan1992

reunion wrote: »

Considering there are board members posting in this thread and the fact that they changed the constitution as a result from it being highlighted in this thread to no longer require these minutes to be public, clearly they don't want the minutes to be made public. I ask highlydebased to provide information about the minutes and information regarding this.

I would highly doubt that minutes of a board meeting such as this will ever be put up on a forum like this. At least not by the board members. As has been suggested, I'm pretty sure if you were to ask Kelly, she'd be happy to help. This is an easy option if the minutes of the board meetings mean that much to you.

Actually he didn't. Since he skipped pages on this thread, he mightn't have read that the complaining previously was about the original site that was launched and not the one as of 20/10/2011.

Since they finally launched a site, the complaining has gone and it has been just noting some technical issues.

If you wish to just have a site that has a play button, then just incorporate the streaming radio app into the ulsu page and delete the ulfm.ulsu.ie site.

So since they made ulfm.ulsu.ie and bought (and is in use atm) ulfm.ie, clearly the website is important. So the board have felt it does matter about the aesthetics.

I think what baz and djnr8 were getting at (and forgive me for misinterpreting if I have) is not that the aesthetics of the site aren't important, just that they are lower on the list of priorities in keeping the station running smoothly.

kpac wrote: »

Just one other comment...why the heck are all the bad-mouthers so worked up over a "constitution"? I'm in a cycling club with about a year and a half. We have no constitution, we don't plan on creating a constitution. We have about 40 members and the club is running perfectly. Not every organisation in the country needs a bloody constitution. The fact that there is a constitution just allows people to give out about it.

Well, we have a constitution for ULFM, so it's only natural that if someone has a problem with it, they're entitled to criticise and push for change. We can argue all we want whether this is an appropriate forum to raise these issues.

It's a known fact that people who give out are the ones who usually stay clear of getting involved in whatever they are giving out about. And what's more is they use a medium such as an internet forum to hide behind. Why not called into the SUComm office some day and give out like you do on here?

To be fair, not everyone in the college is going to be able to get involved in ULFM, but in my view they have as much right to raise concerns as anyone who's volunteered their time to help. ULFM is providing a service to UL, if people find flaws in that service they should raise them.

Also, raising issues here allows wider discussion, so it's a good thing to post problems here, but yes, some posters here are raising issues that, if they care as deeply about them as comes across in their posts, should be taken to the SU.

I think I should run for presidency.

I'll vote for ya. You'd surely do a better job than the crowd that's going for it.

Polar Ice

kpac wrote: »

I'm in a cycling club with about a year and a half. We have no constitution, we don't plan on creating a constitution.

Interesting, if I tried to signup with the UL Mountain biking club I'd have to agree to a constitution. I'm guessing this is a non-UL group. An informal club of 40 people.

kpac wrote: »

It's a known fact that people who give out are the ones who usually stay clear of getting involved in whatever they are giving out about. And what's more is they use a medium such as an internet forum to hide behind. Why not called into the SUComm office some day and give out like you do on here?

A known fact eh?
Was that in the fact book of known facts? :pac:

An open forum where people can post as they please can serve to better highlight an issue. A lot of the people posting commentary here are highly involved in the SU.

highlydebased

Polar Ice wrote: »

A lot of the people posting commentary here are highly involved in the SU.

If so then they should identify themselves and not hide behind their irate comments and their computer screens!

Polar Ice

But good Sir!
I do not wish to come in front of the court.

It's an individuals own prerogative whether or not they wish to state who they are here.
Again, something about facilitating open commentary.

Nockz

highlydebased wrote: »

If so then they should identify themselves and not hide behind their irate comments and their computer screens!

A name/identity means nothing to an opinion.

J_E

kpac wrote: »

It's a known fact that people who give out are the ones who usually stay clear of getting involved in whatever they are giving out about. And what's more is they use a medium such as an internet forum to hide behind.

You're wrong. The majority of people here just see things that could be fixed and want the best of what's been a good service so far. Why would people waste their time making constructive criticisms here if they wanted to 'stay clear'?

Sid_Justice

I've tried to get involved with ULFM a couple of times but there seems to numerous 'technical difficulties' excluding me.

kpac

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I've tried to get involved with ULFM a couple of times but there seems to numerous 'technical difficulties' excluding me.

Gee, maybe you went about it the wrong way, because I didn't have to ask twice.

Polar Ice wrote:

Interesting, if I tried to signup with the UL Mountain biking club I'd have to agree to a constitution. I'm guessing this is a non-UL group. An informal club of 40 people.

Yes, non-UL, but it's a registered Cycling Ireland club.

reunion

kpac wrote: »

Yes, non-UL, but it's a registered Cycling Ireland club.

I am authorised to apply for affiliation on behalf of my club, which agrees to be bound by the rules of Cycling Ireland.

(that quote is on all affliates forms, so if you are part of an affliate you agree to the rules of cycling Ireland)
here is a link to their terms and conditions. http://www.cyclingireland.ie/SpecialPages/Membership-T-C-s.aspx

Any organization needs a constitution, if you don't have one serious legal issues can arise. What happens if you were injured on a cycling trip with that cycle club? Who would be responsible?

Again that isn't up for debate here and is miles off topic. ULFM have a constitution and it isn't up to standard at the moment.

reunion

kpac wrote: »

Err...no, a 100% finished website will be launched. After me telling you 2 or 3 times already, you still don't understand.

Nothing will be 100% complete. Even boards has it's problems, no website is 100% perfect.

kpac wrote: »

Just one other comment...why the heck are all the bad-mouthers so worked up over a "constitution"? I'm in a cycling club with about a year and a half. We have no constitution, we don't plan on creating a constitution. We have about 40 members and the club is running perfectly. Not every organisation in the country needs a bloody constitution. The fact that there is a constitution just allows people to give out about it.

The fact that there is a radio station just allows people to give out about it. Does that mean we shouldn't have one?

Why are you calling people who are highlighting a problem with the ULFM constitution a bad-mouther? We are highlighting a problem with the ULFM constitution. Read my last post, if you can't understand the importance of a constitution (which isn't up for debate here) post a thread in the debating section of boards.

kpac wrote: »

Another example: 3 years ago my local community was organising a fairly big event. A committee was set up etc etc. One day a neighbour of mine was passing in the car. He stopped and started giving out about the committee not doing anything, which wasn't true, obviously. Was he in the committee? No. Would he come to a meeting and voice his opinion? No.

A committee was set up? to deal with what? Did they possibly have some rules in a constitution outlining what they did? This is again off-topic and also an extremely bad example. I can't attend a ULFM board meeting and I can't be on the committee.

kpac wrote: »

It's a known fact that people who give out are the ones who usually stay clear of getting involved in whatever they are giving out about. And what's more is they use a medium such as an internet forum to hide behind. Why not called into the SUComm office some day and give out like you do on here?

Em no, actually I have been involved in the radio, I have provided suggestions. I can't get involved anyway, I'm not a dj but I would be good at the other things but I can't be on the board so I don't see the point.

highlydebased wrote: »

I can forsee an AGM. That's not beyond possibility.

Well if you've burning issues you want dealt with at a board level (or, want a say in the station) how about you send an email to Kelly, or to contactulfm at gmail.com, and these can be dealt with at board level- we're not going to consider posts on boards.ie for agendas.

Actually, I can't forsee an AGM. If you can forsee one, than make a requirement for an AGM. You are on the board, raise the issue.

Ok, I'll just make a new gmail account there, reunionreunionreunion@gmail.com, I will email you guys and I expect it to be dealt with at a board level. I will point out, boards.ie has gotten ULFM a site finally and improved changes, we can also reach the board on this forum too.

OhMSGlive wrote: »

After that post, I'll vote for you.

Seriously, if people have problems with it, they should take it directly to Kelly or any of the directors. Posting it here isn't really the way to go about it. (Although it does make for some pretty interesting board-ing).

again, look at the suggestions at the start of this thread, look at how they have been implemented.

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I would highly doubt that minutes of a board meeting such as this will ever be put up on a forum like this. At least not by the board members. As has been suggested, I'm pretty sure if you were to ask Kelly, she'd be happy to help. This is an easy option if the minutes of the board meetings mean that much to you.

I doubt they would post the minutes here either, however, they should make them available. It shouldn't be based on Kelly's opinion of you if you can see the minutes or not. If someone requests the minutes, it should be given to them. The fact is, Kelly can say no to the minutes and there is nothing the members of ULFM can do.

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I think what baz and djnr8 were getting at (and forgive me for misinterpreting if I have) is not that the aesthetics of the site aren't important, just that they are lower on the list of priorities in keeping the station running smoothly.

Actually to get sponsorship, the site would need to look good. As for a list of priorities, they have them stated in their constitution under aims and objectives and keeping a radio station running wasn't one of their aims or objectives. Might want to add that in, possibly in as 3.7 to provide a radio station via use of an FM band or through the use of the internet.

Something along those lines.

wnolan1992 wrote: »

To be fair, not everyone in the college is going to be able to get involved in ULFM, but in my view they have as much right to raise concerns as anyone who's volunteered their time to help. ULFM is providing a service to UL, if people find flaws in that service they should raise them.


Also, raising issues here allows wider discussion, so it's a good thing to post problems here, but yes, some posters here are raising issues that, if they care as deeply about them as comes across in their posts, should be taken to the SU.

Exactly! I am now making that email account and contacting kelly.
I would like to point out that some people would also like to be anonymous.

highlydebased wrote: »

If so then they should identify themselves and not hide behind their irate comments and their computer screens!

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

As per the Terms of Use that you agreed to when you joined Boards, may I remind you all of the following:

You agree NOT to use Boards.ie to:

* identify or speculate as to the identity of any anonymous or pseudonymous user

Failure to adhere to this may result in infractions and/or bans.

Please remember this when posting in future.

kpac

I don't know why I even bothered posting in the first place. People would be better off not reading or commenting on stuff like this - it only gets them worked-up.

So on that note, see ya.

reunion

To the ULFM board,

I have sent this email to you all, as I wish to highlight these issues at a board level and to make as many of the board aware of this as possible.

1. I formally request the minutes of all previous meetings of the ULFM board.

2. I also request a change in the ULFM constitution to allow an individual to request and receive the minutes of ULFM board meetings and reinstate the previous version of the constitution with the minutes required to be available online.

3. I also request a change in the ULFM constitution to require an AGM once a year to elect a board. The powers currently held by the communications officer in the current ULFM constitution is ridiculous. The board are all appointed by the communications officer and it is a hard task to represent the voice of students when students can't get involved with the running of the station.

4. I would also like clarification as to why ruth scott, will leahy and vivion grisewood have received honourary life membership.
I am of the opinion that designing a logo isn't grounds for honourary life membership, neither is being an associate of ULFM (ruth scott). The number of honourary life memberships given out in the space of 5 weeks is ridiculous, that is one for each completed week so far.
I would like this further clarificatoin to appear in the constitution under appendix 2.

5. I would also like to point out that sabbatical officers are members of the union but are not students of the university

from SU constitution:
"Any person sitting on the Executive shall be a member while they hold their
position on the Executive.

All full-time staff of the Union, for the duration of their employment by the Union,
shall be deemed to be non-voting members"

"All members of the Union shall be entitled to vote in and stand for elections for the
directly elected positions of the Executive"

As kelly is a member of the ULSU and not a student of the University of Limerick, she can rerun for office however, this conflicts with the ULFM constitution:

"6.1. All Members of the Board shall be current UL students."

Meaning the communications officer CAN NOT be the chair of the ULFM board. This would probably need to be changed to say current members of the students union and not current students.

I hope that you see constitutional changes are required.

Reunion

This is the email I sent to as much of the board as I could (Two Colm Fitzgerald and two Jason Kennedys so couldn't email them).

Points 2-5 should now be on the agenda for the next ULFM board meeting (according to the ULFM constitution.

OhMSGlive

reunion wrote: »

This is the email I sent to as much of the board as I could (Two Colm Fitzgerald and two Jason Kennedys so couldn't email them).

Points 2-5 should now be on the agenda for the next ULFM board meeting (according to the ULFM constitution.

What email addresses do you have for each? For Colm it should be

cmgsup[at]gmail[dot]com

. Not sure about Jason though.

reunion

OhMSGlive wrote: »

What email addresses do you have for each? For Colm it should be

cmgsup[at]gmail[dot]com

. Not sure about Jason though.

I emailed the student email address of each individual listed on the ULFM site. I emailed that address aswell, along with su communications. 2 students with the same name as jason and colm existed so they weren't emailed.

wnolan1992

reunion wrote: »

I emailed the student email address of each individual listed on the ULFM site. I emailed that address aswell, along with su communications. 2 students with the same name as jason and colm existed so they weren't emailed.

hope you added

contactulfm[at]gmail[dot]com

as well.

Question, you say in the email that you "formally request minutes", I'm just wondering can a formal request be made anonymously?

OhMSGlive

wnolan1992 wrote: »

hope you added

contactulfm[at]gmail[dot]com

as well.

Question, you say in the email that you "formally request minutes", I'm just wondering can a formal request be made anonymously?

I actually don't think it can. Don't hold me to that though.

reunion

OhMSGlive wrote: »

I actually don't think it can. Don't hold me to that though.

Actually a request can be made anonymously. If the communications officer chooses to reject or accept the request is entirely up to her (yay ridiculous constitution). Nothing states in the ULFM constitution that you need to publicly delcare who you are and why you request the minutes. It also doesn't state how you can formally request the minutes either. However board members have posted saying to contact them at some email address for concerns to be raised. I have done this and I am awaiting a reply.

highlydebased

reunion wrote: »

Actually a request can be made anonymously. If the communications officer chooses to reject or accept the request is entirely up to her (yay ridiculous constitution). Nothing states in the ULFM constitution that you need to publicly delcare who you are and why you request the minutes. It also doesn't state how you can formally request the minutes either. However board members have posted saying to contact them at some email address for concerns to be raised. I have done this and I am awaiting a reply.

You have a reply.

OhMSGlive

reunion wrote: »

Actually a request can be made anonymously. If the communications officer chooses to reject or accept the request is entirely up to her (yay ridiculous constitution). Nothing states in the ULFM constitution that you need to publicly delcare who you are and why you request the minutes. It also doesn't state how you can formally request the minutes either. However board members have posted saying to contact them at some email address for concerns to be raised. I have done this and I am awaiting a reply.

I'd say if/when the new constitution comes out, they'll have this loophole closed up. IMHO, if you're going to request minutes to a meeting, you should really "publicly" (i.e. in the email) declare your identity. Just as you have a right to view the minutes, they have a right to know who is requesting them.

reunion

highlydebased wrote: »

You have a reply.

In the interest of ensuring you are a current UL student you will have to provide your actual name to us. Otherwise we will not entertain your requests.

kind regards,

Colm

Colm,

As you are a board member, an opinion of one, doesn't reflect the opinion of 51% of the board as is required by the constitution for such a request to be denied. I am awaiting a response from the communications officer as chair of the board to officially inform me of request being denied. The constitution doesn't state that I need to be named in order to request minutes. Regardless the chair is the spokesperson of ULFM and not the technical director.

The constitutional amendments I'm proposing require you to be a ULFM member, however they don't state you need to identify yourself (or how to identify yourself) when submitting a proposal.

I would also like to point out, so long as I am a member of the SU, I am a member of ULFM. There is no requirement for me to be a current UL student. I would like a proper discussion on the matter and not the technical directors opinion on whether the matter will be entertained or not.

Reunion

Already got a reply from the board Colm,

[FONT=tahoma,sans-serif]Unless you are willing to identify yourself I am not willing to enter into any discussion or further correspondence with you.[/FONT][FONT=tahoma, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, sans-serif]Furthermore, seeing as you emailed the entire board why are you complaining about a response from any other than Kelly?
[/FONT][FONT=tahoma,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma,sans-serif]Thanks

Colm[/FONT]

[FONT=tahoma,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
any ulfm member who doesn't want to remain anonymous want to submit my original email to ULFM?

OhMSGlive

reunion wrote: »

any ulfm member who doesn't want to remain anonymous want to submit my original email to ULFM?

Dude, with all due respect, what's your problem with identifying yourself?

reunion

Colm,

That's good that you no longer wish to enter into discussion or correspondence with me. I do not take unofficial responses from the technical director acting alone as the word of the entire ULFM board.

Like I stated in my first email, I was making as much of the board as I could aware of these issues so it can be brought to a board level and not just to one individual.

Reunion

My reply.

OhMSGlive wrote: »

I'd say if/when the new constitution comes out, they'll have this loophole closed up. IMHO, if you're going to request minutes to a meeting, you should really "publicly" (i.e. in the email) declare your identity. Just as you have a right to view the minutes, they have a right to know who is requesting them.

Actually, nobody has the right to view the minutes (why this issue is arising). If they wish to identify someone requesting minutes, I request that a standard procedure be put in place. If I request minutes and have to give my name, so too would any other individual requesting the minutes.

wnolan1992

OhMSGlive wrote: »

Dude, with all due respect, what's your problem with identifying yourself?

OMG, is it Jim Corr? And he thinks the corporation that is ULFM will hunt him down and murder him if he identifies himself? It all makes such sense now! :pac:

OhMSGlive

reunion wrote: »

My reply.



Actually, nobody has the right to view the minutes (why this issue is arising). If they wish to identify someone requesting minutes, I request that a standard procedure be put in place. If I request minutes and have to give my name, so too would any other individual requesting the minutes.

*DISCLAIMER* Though I am associated with ULFM (not at board level though), I'd like to make it clear that views contained here are my own, not that of the station or anyone else associated with it.

I'm sure that a standard procedure will be put in place if it is so requested.

OhMSGlive

wnolan1992 wrote: »

OMG, is it Jim Corr? And he thinks the corporation that is ULFM will hunt him down and murder him if he identifies himself? It all makes such sense now! :pac:

Bingo!

Nockz

Why does the identity of reunion (or anyone) matter?

OhMSGlive

Nockz wrote: »

Why does the identity of reunion (or anyone) matter?

The identity itself doesn't matter - I don't care who reunion is to be honest. But the board have a right to know who's requesting a copy of the minutes, just as reunion has a right to request a copy. (It's not mentioned in the constitution, but it's just common sense.)

wnolan1992

Nockz wrote: »

Why does the identity of reunion (or anyone) matter?

It doesn't matter one bit to the thread, but if he is making a formal request to the Comms. Officer/the ULFM board, then I don't really see the problem in him identifying himself to them in an email. Ask them to keep his identity confidential. If he wants to post the correspondence here (as he did above) then just remove the name. It's not rocket science and is a simple solution to this issue, rather than another 10 pages of posts about it here.

Sid_Justice

OhMSGlive wrote: »

Dude, with all due respect, what's your problem with identifying yourself?

none of your business who he is. post reported

Nockz

OhMSGlive wrote: »

The identity itself doesn't matter - I don't care who reunion is to be honest. But the board have a right to know who's requesting a copy of the minutes, just as reunion has a right to request a copy. (It's not mentioned in the constitution, but it's just common sense.)

Is this not at all contradicting?