Political allegiance of SU

reunion

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Did you read the thread? Why are commenting if you obviously haven't?

Point 1 - other threads on SU party politics are a year old, the population of this college rolls over by 25% every year. It is impolite to drag up old threads. You should know this.

Point 2 - yes, derek daly was campaigning for a FF politician during the week. He was not doing his SU job.

Point 3 - I have not focused on anyone, the discussion has, if anyone else feels it appropriate to bring the political views of other officers to the discussion I would appreciate that, demonstrated by the fact I have encouraged people to do so.

Actually I believe derek took a day off this week, could be that day he was campaigning. Also Sabbats don't have set working times, so you can't really argue they are doing it on the students dime either.

You mention davis Derek in your first post. Your first post was also answered, it can be answered by yourself reading the SU constitution located here: http://ulsu.ie/UserFiles/Uploads/File/Constitution_25-02-09.pdf

You can also go in and ask Derek yourself, he is there today.

also FYI Sid

General Posting Guidelines
Please navigate around the forums before starting a new thread. Use the search function if you think something may have been posted before.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

neither am i.

Can you rephrase this in more comprehensible English.

Typical straw man, you need to look up logical fallacies, you're too ill informed to comment on this.

Personal abuse will not be tolerated on this foru,.

You really have no idea about what you're talking about. This thread is about UL officers and their political influences.

Serious cause of the pot calling the kettle black.

you're not a mod here.

Why give an extreme example of Mary McAleese when this thread is purely about UL officers? Why even mention that? You need to take your own advice here with logical fallacies.

Look up the link I gave you above, read the constitution, get yourself informed. If you can't comprehend the english go in and ask Derek daly.

I'm not a mod here, hence why it was a suggestion.... Please try to read ALL of the post before posting back snippets of someone's reply.

Sid_Justice

reunion wrote: »

Actually I believe derek took a day off this week, could be that day he was campaigning.

This has been addressed twice by me and no one has responded. This is what happened:

Derek Daly took a personal day (a paid day off work) to go campaign for a FFer in a General election in West Dublin and probably fitted in some presidential campaigning.

We as students have no control over when DD decides to take his holidays. DD would not let his colleagues take a holiday like this during term. Why is he allowed then? Do you think its acceptable that SU president can drop all SU work when ever he pleases and go campaign for some political party?

Also Sabbats don't have set working times, so you can't really argue they are doing it on the students dime either.

Are you actually serious? What kind of statement is this. Sabbats don't have set working hours so we can't ask them to account for their salaries because they work when they feel like it. No one in the country has this amount of flexitime. IF DD is using SU time and money to run his side business of electioneering it needs to be address by council. IT is not acceptable. YOu endorsing this is a sign of your lack of credibility.

You mention davis Derek in your first post. Your first post was also answered, it can be answered by yourself reading the SU constitution located here: http://ulsu.ie/UserFiles/Uploads/File/Constitution_25-02-09.pdf

I have read this. MY post cannot be answered by the SU constitution, you've obviously never read the document?

You can also go in and ask Derek yourself, he is there today.

How do you know he is there? I thought he has no set working hours? maybe he is out campaigning for the WWF or Trocaire or FF?

Why give an extreme example of Mary McAleese when this thread is purely about UL officers? Why even mention that? You need to take your own advice here with logical fallacies.

Because it's an example of a president who is a figure head of a population of people. It's topical (there is a presidential election going on currently you know). DD is accountable for his facebook, if he wrote anything on it I felt reflected badly on himself, the sU or UL I would expect the council to pursue it vigorously. As far as I know there isn't anything on it that shouldn't be . This isn't a witch hunt either.

Peteee

Can we heighten the tone here please.

cee_jay

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Derek Daly took a personal day (a paid day off work) to go campaign for a FFer in a General election in West Dublin and probably fitted in some presidential campaigning.

We as students have no control over when DD decides to take his holidays. DD would not let his colleagues take a holiday like this during term. Why is he allowed then? Do you think its acceptable that SU president can drop all SU work when ever he pleases and go campaign for some political party?



Are you actually serious? What kind of statement is this. Sabbats don't have set working hours so we can't ask them to account for their salaries because they work when they feel like it. No one in the country has this amount of flexitime. IF DD is using SU time and money to run his side business of electioneering it needs to be address by council. IT is not acceptable. YOu endorsing this is a sign of your lack of credibility.



I have read this. MY post cannot be answered by the SU constitution, you've obviously never read the document?

From the SU Constitution, Articles 34 and 35 state that all staff (including the Student Union President) shall be accountable to the Secretary General and The Secretary General, subject to the Executive, shall supervise staffing of the Union.
If you had read the Constitution maybe you would have known that if you had issues regarding the Annual Leave of the SU President they would be the person to direct your query regarding this.

Sid_Justice

I am aware of that, certainly the jist of it. I am just using this forum to discuss the public actions of the public President. I've no need to be telling tales to anyone. This is just a friendly, open discussion about the role of the SU sabbatical officers in electioneering. If people in the know feel that the president taking the day off to do some personal work is within his remit, so be it. Just don't pretend the SU president is apolitical.

Some people are extremely defensive on this forum, you'd swear I'd accused DD of a crime.

kflynn

is it me or are people just going around the issue of what they actually think of Derek?!

Sid_Justice

just you mate

kflynn

no I dont mean just you I mean there seems to be a divide in general between people who love him and hate him....

Sid_Justice

Bit like marmite is he?

I guess with being around so long you'll build up a team of loyal supporters and the odd critic.

perhaps the c&s tomfoolery was a catalyst?

freyners

Sid_Justice wrote:

This has been addressed twice by me and no one has responded. This is what happened:

Derek Daly took a personal day (a paid day off work) to go campaign for a FFer in a General election in West Dublin and probably fitted in some presidential campaigning.

how did you find out it was a personal (paid) day off as a matter of interest rather than a scheduled day off or an unpaid one?

Polar Ice

cee_jay wrote: »

From the SU Constitution, Articles 34 and 35 state that all staff (including the Student Union President) shall be accountable to the Secretary General and The Secretary General, subject to the Executive, shall supervise staffing of the Union.
If you had read the Constitution maybe you would have known that if you had issues regarding the Annual Leave of the SU President they would be the person to direct your query regarding this.

The ULSU no longer has a Secretary General. It now has a General Manager.

Sid_Justice

freyners wrote: »

how did you find out it was a personal (paid) day off as a matter of interest rather than a scheduled day off or an unpaid one?

A source.

Jester252

Sid_Justice wrote: »

A source.

Good to see dragged up this Thread because he got called out on another Thread

Sid_Justice

what do you mean by that? What's with the personal abuse? Someone made a reference to me leaving a comment unreplied too, this is the only loose end I could find. According to a source, and no good investigative reporter tells who his sources are, Daly took a holiday and went campaigning. He usually does it at weekends but took the monday off too.

Nockz

Sid_Justice wrote: »

what do you mean by that? What's with the personal abuse? Someone made a reference to me leaving a comment unreplied too, this is the only loose end I could find. According to a source, and no good investigative reporter tells who his sources are, Daly took a holiday and went campaigning. He usually does it at weekends but took the monday off too.

A source tells me you are a farce of a 'reporter'.

Sid_Justice

Listen it's obvious Daly took one of his holidays, he has about 30 of them to go campaigning.

Leave what ever weird obsession you have with me at the door, this is a fact. If you can't dispute the facts or offer an informed opinion would you mind taking your nonsense act elsewhere.

Jester252

Has someone let Daly know he can have holidays

Sid_Justice

Listen Jester, I am sick of repeating myself with people reading one or two posts in a forum and then trying to sound smart responding.

reread the thread. Daly is entitled to have holidays and can spend them how he wants, either on the beach in the algarve or in dublin slaving away for FF. The facts of the matter are he took a holiday during a busy week to go working for FF when other members of the SU weren't afforded the same luxury.

your exact comment has come up 3 times and has been replied to 3 times. read the thread in its entirety or go post in AHs

Jester252

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Listen Jester, I am sick of repeating myself with people reading one or two posts in a forum and then trying to sound smart responding.

reread the thread. Daly is entitled to have holidays and can spend them how he wants, either on the beach in the algarve or in dublin slaving away for FF. The facts of the matter are he took a holiday during a busy week to go working for FF when other members of the SU weren't afforded the same luxury.

your exact comment has come up 3 times and has been replied to 3 times. read the thread in its entirety or go post in AHs

How do YOU know if any other SU officer wished to take a holiday that week.
P.S you cant say a source without a quote I don't know for you but I like my sources peer review

freyners

Sid_Justice wrote: »

A source.

id say you know this yourself but that's a weak answer, its ok to say a source if that's your starting point and you can later give any kind of evidence to back it up, or if someone provided you hard evidence and someone asked how you got it then you can plead source

but

to say source and to use that solely doesn't make it a fact Sid, anyone can make any claim whatsoever and say a source/friends/next door neighbours cat told them that...doesnt make it true and is not a fact unless other evidence supports it

by all means if you can prove (with visible evidence)that he took a day off to campaign for FF and that another SU member was denied a holiday day that week because it was too busy and if so, were they working on the same type of work as DD would be was (a busy week for comms lets say might not mean a busy one for education, im sure there all busy anyways but just as an example) then you have a point

CiaranMT

Sid_Justice wrote: »

reread the thread. Daly is entitled to have holidays and can spend them how he wants, either on the beach in the algarve or in dublin slaving away for FF. The facts of the matter are he took a holiday during a busy week to go working for FF when other members of the SU weren't afforded the same luxury.

So, what has he done wrong here exactly?

Sid_Justice

I have it on good authority DD had refused other officers time off in similar circumstances.

PROGRAM_IX

If that's true then it's definitely something I'd have an issue with, but unless you have something better than a 'good authority' I don't think it's going to fly here. It's highly controversial and therefore people are going to want proof.

Sid_Justice

freyners wrote: »

id say you know this yourself but that's a weak answer, its ok to say a source if that's your starting point and you can later give any kind of evidence to back it up, or if someone provided you hard evidence and someone asked how you got it then you can plead source

but

to say source and to use that solely doesn't make it a fact Sid, anyone can make any claim whatsoever and say a source/friends/next door neighbours cat told them that...doesnt make it true and is not a fact unless other evidence supports it

by all means if you can prove (with visible evidence)that he took a day off to campaign for FF and that another SU member was denied a holiday day that week because it was too busy and if so, were they working on the same type of work as DD would be was (a busy week for comms lets say might not mean a busy one for education, im sure there all busy anyways but just as an example) then you have a point

if you doubt it, go check? really demonstrates the naivety of some people here. DD is an employee. He is not a student. He is entitled to annual leave. He took annual leave to go attend a thingy. Why would anyone take a day off and not get paid for it if they have annual leave? If he wasn't on paid annual leave one of his cronies would be here denying it. He was. It's a fact as far as i am concerned unless someone proves other wise. The onus is on them to prove other wise, common sense and protocol and precedent is on my side.

freyners

Sid_Justice wrote: »

if you doubt it, go check?

you made the accusation, you back it up



just add in what you added

really demonstrates the naivety of some people here. DD is an employee. He is not a student. He is entitled to annual leave. He took annual leave to go attend a thingy. Why would anyone take a day off and not get paid for it if they have annual leave? If he wasn't on paid annual leave one of his cronies would be here denying it. He was. It's a fact as far as i am concerned unless someone proves other wise. The onus is on them to prove other wise, common sense and protocol and precedent is on my side.

not disputing that part..his holiday days, he can do whatever he wants with them

however your accusation boils down to he denied permission to other members to take leave days because it was a busy week. if thats true, yes that would be a potential abuse of power. However you have supplied no evidence other than your 'source', which is accessible to the rest of us. So you have two options
1.) you can tell us who told you this
or
2.) back up your original claim with evidence we can see.

Otherwise why should we be convinced

CiaranMT

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I have it on good authority DD had refused other officers time off in similar circumstances.

PROGRAM_IX wrote: »

If that's true then it's definitely something I'd have an issue with, but unless you have something better than a 'good authority' I don't think it's going to fly here. It's highly controversial and therefore people are going to want proof.

What he said.

Sid_Justice

How about I leave it up to your own reasoning? If there is any logic rattling around your tin cans.

The SU sabbatical officers are employees. Just like any employee they need prior-approval of their manager before taking annual leave/holidays. This happens in every job, you submit a proposal in writing, and they either accept or deny based on some metric, usually busyness.

The early weeks are busy weeks, in fact all term weeks are busy weeks for SU officers, at least they should be. Officers were advised that annual leave would not be entertained during such times unless in emergency. This is reasonable, there are loads of non-term time they can take holidays.

Does anyone want to offer evidence that SU officers other than daly took annual leave monday to friday during term thus far? No one? Ok I'll continue.

For those that are intelligent you would have noticed you need your boss to sign off your annual leave form. DD is president and therefore has no boss. He went campaigning to dublin on friday and was met with the dilemma of staying up on monday to do another day or return to UL.

It is accepted that he stayed in dublin (no one disputes this) on monday and did a days work for FF. I say he took annual leave ( a paid holiday day). You might dispute this, only one way to find out. I am satisfied i know the answer to this so will not be disputing it.

Question: How probable do you think it is DD stayed in dublin on monday campaigning for FF missing a days work in UL?
How probable do you think he took a day off in circumstance he wouldn't afford other officers the opportunity to do?

Jester252

Sid_Justice wrote: »

How about I leave it up to your own reasoning? If there is any logic rattling around your tin cans.

The SU sabbatical officers are employees. Just like any employee they need prior-approval of their manager before taking annual leave/holidays. This happens in every job, you submit a proposal in writing, and they either accept or deny based on some metric, usually busyness.

The early weeks are busy weeks, in fact all term weeks are busy weeks for SU officers, at least they should be. Officers were advised that annual leave would not be entertained during such times unless in emergency. This is reasonable, there are loads of non-term time they can take holidays.

Does anyone want to offer evidence that SU officers other than daly took annual leave monday to friday during term thus far? No one? Ok I'll continue.

For those that are intelligent you would have noticed you need your boss to sign off your annual leave form. DD is president and therefore has no boss. He went campaigning to dublin on friday and was met with the dilemma of staying up on monday to do another day or return to UL.

It is accepted that he stayed in dublin (no one disputes this) on monday and did a days work for FF. I say he took annual leave ( a paid holiday day). You might dispute this, only one way to find out. I am satisfied i know the answer to this so will not be disputing it.

Question: How probable do you think it is DD stayed in dublin on monday campaigning for FF missing a days work in UL?
How probable do you think he took a day off in circumstance he wouldn't afford other officers the opportunity to do?

Sid YOU made the claim YOU have to provide the support.
Unless you next post is support please dont post

PROGRAM_IX

Sid_Justice wrote: »

How about I leave it up to your own reasoning? If there is any logic rattling around your tin cans.

The SU sabbatical officers are employees. Just like any employee they need prior-approval of their manager before taking annual leave/holidays. This happens in every job, you submit a proposal in writing, and they either accept or deny based on some metric, usually busyness.

The early weeks are busy weeks, in fact all term weeks are busy weeks for SU officers, at least they should be. Officers were advised that annual leave would not be entertained during such times unless in emergency. This is reasonable, there are loads of non-term time they can take holidays.

Does anyone want to offer evidence that SU officers other than daly took annual leave monday to friday during term thus far? No one? Ok I'll continue.

For those that are intelligent you would have noticed you need your boss to sign off your annual leave form. DD is president and therefore has no boss. He went campaigning to dublin on friday and was met with the dilemma of staying up on monday to do another day or return to UL.

It is accepted that he stayed in dublin (no one disputes this) on monday and did a days work for FF. I say he took annual leave ( a paid holiday day). You might dispute this, only one way to find out. I am satisfied i know the answer to this so will not be disputing it.

Question: How probable do you think it is DD stayed in dublin on monday campaigning for FF missing a days work in UL?
How probable do you think he took a day off in circumstance he wouldn't afford other officers the opportunity to do?

From earlier in this thread.

cee_jay wrote: »

From the SU Constitution, Articles 34 and 35 state that all staff (including the Student Union President) shall be accountable to the Secretary General and The Secretary General, subject to the Executive, shall supervise staffing of the Union.
If you had read the Constitution maybe you would have known that if you had issues regarding the Annual Leave of the SU President they would be the person to direct your query regarding this.

As Polar Ice pointed out, they no longer have a Secretary General but a General Manager, but it was my understanding as a member of SU Exec last year that the General Manager would take on this and other aspects of the General Manager's job.
That means that Derek did/will have to answer to someone about his leave.

Sid_Justice

Jester252 wrote: »

Sid YOU made the claim YOU have to provide the support.
Unless you next post is support please dont post

you can't argue with logic. every man and his dog knows this.