ULSU EGM

canned_ulkc

reunion wrote: »

Now I will assume she has €50K of advertising for the year. €28K is her salary (well CSO but I presume they are similar(link)), and the paper isn't free to print so roughly 61c per copy (from here for UCD (for 30 pages (current size of the paper))) which amounts to ~€1,830 per issue (~3000 copies) for 14 issues thats ~€25,620. So communications runs at a loss of roughly €3,620. Now include ULFM's cost of €5K and the lost is roughly €8,620.

While it's great to be able to look at the value of this role, I think restricting that to monetary value doesn't see the whole picture.
Personally, I don't think that running at a loss of €8/9K per year is a reason to give up or put at risk all the integrity and value that a functioning office holds.

If you regard it as a student service, losses are acceptable when the service is provided to all students.

RMartinez

horsemeat wrote: »

Jason can I ask you a question,

you're obviously great mates with kelly, you obviously plan to run for comms if the position exists, why does kelly want to get rid of it? i mean it's her who has put this idea forth not anyone else. is she not screwing over a mate in a sense.

i mean she put the motion forth but then i read something from her saying she wasnt sure how she feels about it now. wtf like.

jasonpkennedy wrote: »

To be very honest, I have no idea why they want to get rid of it. I know it's because of representational issues, but apart from that, I really don't know. Wish I could be more help on that front.

Maybe Kelly is supporting the abolishment because that is the stance the Union is taking on the matter and she has no choice in the matter?

Jester252

canned_ulkc wrote: »

I wonder though is it more about aboloshing positions because they are non-representational (IMO the CO is representitive or at least the integrity of An Focal is at risk any other way so far as I can see) and therefore could become part of ULSU staff rather than voted for representational officers?

I mean, is the primary objective to save 2 X wages or is the primary objective to reassign the duties of these roles? If wages is not the primary issue then perhaps there is room to reassign roles and reduce by just one position.

In terms of using the title PRO I think it might be a bit of a connundrum given that a PRO's role would not fit well with the unbiased nature of reporting (through An Focal)

Tony

I just throw out the name PRO
If the one position was made the person will not be charge of an focal. They will be there to step in if the student that is running it (Coop/volunteer) is not doing the job up to standard or has to leave due to outside problems.
I don't think it would be hard for a student to do this. They will just worry about the stories in the paper. Advertising will be looked after by the position.
and as reunion pointed out ULFM is not under the CO it is a student run radio.

jasonpkennedy

Kelly's a friend of mine, so I'm not going to get into a discussion here on her own personal beliefs about this motion. It's out there already and on Wednesday it'll be up to the students to either pass it or reject it. Whatever happens, I'm sure the standard of work out of that office will remain high for the rest of the semester.

Polar Ice

reunion wrote: »

€28K is her salary (well CSO but I presume they are similar)

CO Blog wrote:

If we abolish the position, we save 28k of the 80k of annual expenditure that we need to to break even year after year.

The wording doesn't say. There can be other costs associated with having someone on payroll besides their salary.

That seems way too high for a sabbatical salary. Surprisingly, I don't know what the salary is.

What is a sabbatical officers salary?

SarahBeep!

Polar Ice wrote: »

The wording doesn't say. There can be other costs associated with having someone on payroll besides their salary.

That seems way too high for a sabbatical salary. Surprisingly, I don't know what the salary is.

What is a sabbatical officers salary?

Minimum wage plus €1 per hour which I can only presume is for a 40hr working week

More info here ---> http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.collegetribune.ie%2Findex.php%2F2011%2F03%2Fsabbat-pay-an-election-issue%2F&h=_AQGqqITCAQGiz2MyegBsL4AZ6n8Qr7OR0e49oAnxFMDWcQ

Polar Ice

Thanks, interesting article.

I didn't know what it was, having spent 4 years in the University. I also know that at least one of those who contested the elections last year didn't know the salary either.

SarahBeep!

Polar Ice wrote: »

Thanks, interesting article.

I didn't know what it was, having spent 4 years in the University. I also know that at least one of those who contested the elections last year didn't know the salary either.

If you're doing it for the salary then you really shouldn't be running at all tbh.

Polar Ice

I know that, but at the same time I'd consider it odd to run and not know.
And with me, it wasn't like I wasn't involved in the SU...

canned_ulkc

When are anonymous and apparently well meaning posters going to realise that they are throwing themselves into hot water by posting such stuff.

If your intention is to have these proposals raised at EGM then by all means do so but you run a serious risk to yourself and to Kelly by putting this up on a public forum.

concerned_ul

canned_ulkc wrote: »

When are anonymous and apparently well meaning posters going to realise that they are throwing themselves into hot water by posting such stuff.

If your intention is to have these proposals raised at EGM then by all means do so but you run a serious risk to yourself and to Kelly by putting this up on a public forum.

I have no intention of raising these proposals at the EGM. My only intention is to make public the fact that Kelly sent out this email to some of the Class Reps asking them to make these proposals.

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

reunion

The EGM is tomorrow not today so WEDNESDAY AT 2PM http://www.facebook.com/events/285732638154752/



Aren't class reps abolished from last semesters GM? Can Class Rep Council safeguard things? Actually, are postgrads apart of the SU? What happens their say in the matter of SU (since postgrads aren't part of class rep council)?

Kelly is causing quite the controversy. If the CSO actions are true, can't action be taken against him for any misuse of students money?

I would also point out that creating a new accout and posting an email by no right makes it legitimate, but due to Kelly's actions recently it could be true.

Kelly needs to realise that ULFM will and should be a society, as an SU service it should be scrapped (site is still not up). It actually an embaressing service to be kept running, it's being used by less then ~0.6% of the students. Drumroe was shut down and it was being used by ~0.6% of students a day!

As for the paper, it was around prior to CO so it will always be around. Anfocal.ie should be utilized more with every club and society president and each sabbat and select students (editors, etc) given access to allow submission of an article (no administration privileges (it's using wordpress)). For the paper just take out the top 50 most read articles and put it into a paper and reduce the number of printed copies.


I would also point out article 18 of the SU constitution.

Commission of Arbitration
1. There shall be a commission of arbitration, hereafter known as the Commission, whose role is to make judgements on:

1° Aspects of Union policy
2° Disputes that arise between Officers of the Union, Union members, Union working groups, Council
3° The interpretation of the Constitution.

2. Membership of the commission shall be:

1° The Deputy Chairperson of Council;
2° Two nominees of Council;
3° One external nominee of Executive;
4° Two nominees of Clubs and Societies Council;
5° One nominee of Postgraduate Students’ Association.

3. The quorum for Commission meetings shall be four members of the Commission.

4. The term of office of the Commission shall be from the fourth week of the autumn semester for a period of one year.

5. Members shall declare any conflict of interest and shall be excused for the meetings relating to that case. The nominating body of the excused member shall replace the member for the duration, and meetings, of that case.

6. In the case where members of the Commission do not declare any conflict of interest and where such conflicts of interest are found to exist, the decisions of the Commission regarding that case shall automatically be deemed null and void and their membership of the Commission shall cease.

7. Members of the Commission shall resign their post where they are elected to any position on the Executive.

The commision decisions are final but I don't know what powers this commission has. Either way this commission should be utilized as a clear dispute has arisen between kelly and paddy.

Also article 28 (not all of it but important point)

Sabbatical Officers shall be subject to having set proportions of their wages withheld by Council. Thus Council may fine Sabbatical Officers 15 per cent, 30 per cent, or 45 per cent, or their wages for a period of one month. A first written warning shall accompany the imposition of such a fine.

article 34 point 2

2. All staff shall ultimately be accountable to the Secretary General.

So Paddy would be accountable to the secretary General.

Also can't a vote of no confidence be raised at a GM?

reunion

concerned_ul wrote: »

I have no intention of raising these proposals at the EGM. My only intention is to make public the fact that Kelly sent out this email to some of the Class Reps asking them to make these proposals.

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

Concerned_ul, your baseless email is quite shocking. Just because you post

===========================
BEGIN EMAIL
===========================

Kind Regards,

Kelly O’Brien
Communications Officer
Oifigeach Cumarsáide

---

University of Limerick Students' Union
061 202363 | 086 0435304
sucommunications@ul.ie| www.ulsu.ie
www.facebook.com/ulstudentsunion

===========================
END EMAIL
===========================


doesn't make the email official, not to mention your zero post count prior to that post leading to zero credibility. You also don't wish to raise any of this at the EGM just raises an increased amount of ridiculous your post entails. This could be severly damaging to positions within the SU and it's not painting a nice picture of people within the SU currently and you are certainly adding to a rumor mill.

This is a clear violation of the UL forum charter.

I would also point out that as it states in the text you put up, she sent it to friends who just happen to be class reps. She didn't send it to all of class reps.

canned_ulkc

reunion wrote: »

This could be severly damaging to positions within the SU and it's not painting a nice picture of people within the SU currently and you are certainly adding to a rumor mill.

I have a feeling that that is the intention..... There's a lot of hints and innuendo about Paddy's alleged indescretions etc. Perhaps this person feels that it's unjust that such emails are being sent out in a direct attempt to discredit Paddy and represent an abuse of position? (Debateable, but I'm just trying to figure out the intention)

reunion wrote: »

I would also point out that as it states in the text you put up, she sent it to friends who just happen to be class reps. She didn't send it to all of class reps.

Perhaps not, but if this is genuine, you have to admit that it simply doesn't look good for a person in a sabbat position to target class reps in order to encourage them to think a certain way.
That's based of course on the assumption that the email is genuine and only a personal musing of what the intention is of posting it so publicly might be.

Tony

Peteee

canned_uk, I've removed the post with the email.

Private correspondence will not be posted up here.

concerned_ul

My original post has been removed, so no point in continuing this conversation.

My intention was to make the UL community aware of what has been going on with the SU, but obviously some people don't want the students of UL to know what their SU sabbats have been up to.

canned_ulkc

People do want to know.... However, posting on a public forum details which cannot be verified from an anonymous account should never be accepted as the ultimate truth.

The right direction for this to go is back to those in the SU so that it is dealt with there.

There's an awful lot of talk going around about improper conduct of persons in the SU. It's a contradiction to step outside of the proper structure of addressing these issues.

If we feel we can't trust the SU to deal with these issues and report back how the findings and actions then we should be demanding such integrity from our representitives or demanding their removal.

concerned_ul

canned_ulkc wrote: »

People do want to know.... However, posting on a public forum details which cannot be verified from an anonymous account should never be accepted as the ultimate truth.

The right direction for this to go is back to those in the SU so that it is dealt with there.

There's an awful lot of talk going around about improper conduct of persons in the SU. It's a contradiction to step outside of the proper structure of addressing these issues.

If we feel we can't trust the SU to deal with these issues and report back how the findings and actions then we should be demanding such integrity from our representitives or demanding their removal.

Considering the number of rumours going around, it looks like the SU have been aware of these issues for some time and have done nothing about them. I don't think posting this back to the SU will achieve anything. The students of UL have a right to know what the sabbats are doing, after all they elected the sabbats and pay their wages.

wnolan1992

concerned_ul wrote: »

Considering the number of rumours going around, it looks like the SU have been aware of these issues for some time and have done nothing about them. I don't think posting this back to the SU will achieve anything. The students of UL have a right to know what the sabbats are doing, after all they elected the sabbats and pay their wages.

They do, but posting stuff like the "SU is F**ked" thread, with no evidence is not informing the students of anything. It's spreading rumours and conjecture. Even Kelly "confirming" that some of what was written was true proves nothing. It's still just hearsay.

The way to find out is to go to the EGM tomorrow, and ask them to clarify the rumours on the record. We demand to see records of expenses claimed, and demand that if a certain sabbat member is not doing his/her job, that they be made resign so we as a student body are given the representation we voted for.

kflynn

wow!

just came back, didnt expect this! Saw some bits about expenses but not who or what?

Cant believe Dromroe is closed, but so many business's are facing difficulties.

My problem is with how it is being handled. Of course Facebook is private, and that is right, you should be able to promote anything, like Derek an FF. You should not be able to make such statements about your place of work or colleagues. To say spar was mis managed is in my opinion slanderous, it implies the blame is with the redundant general manager when he in fact did not have enough power to mis manage it. In private companies you can get fired for this, times are tough enough, but too much time is wasted on rumours.

We are meant to be the new improved generation who gained knowledge from the older generation's mistakes.

concerned_ul

wnolan1992 wrote: »

They do, but posting stuff like the "SU is F**ked" thread, with no evidence is not informing the students of anything. It's spreading rumours and conjecture. Even Kelly "confirming" that some of what was written was true proves nothing. It's still just hearsay.

The way to find out is to go to the EGM tomorrow, and ask them to clarify the rumours on the record. We demand to see records of expenses claimed, and demand that if a certain sabbat member is not doing his/her job, that they be made resign so we as a student body are given the representation we voted for.

It's not hearsay when the CO herself emails some of the class reps and asks them to propose motions at the EGM. The email was sent by Kelly, otherwise, why would she sent me a PM confirming that she sent it, and asking for it to be removed?

I didn't post the email because of the allegations that certain sabbats haven't been doing their job, I posted it for two reasons:

1) The way the sabbats have handled the whole issue - the rumours about what has been going on only surfaced following a blog post by the CSO and a Facebook status update from the CO. The silence from the other sabbats has been deafening. Derek is the SU President, at what point is he going to turn around and show show leadership and tell the sabbats to cop themselves on and do the job they were elected, and get paid, to do?

2) The way Kelly contacted some of the class reps undermines the whole process of proposing any motions at the EGM. Following this email, how are we supposed to know if any motions that are proposed tomorrow are proposed because they are best for the students, or because Kelly asked her friends to do it because she can't?

I have no more an idea of what's going on in the SU than any other student, but I do know that the SU have been far from transparent on what's going on. The sabbats have put themselves into this position, and have fed the rumour mill far more than I have. Posting the email from Kelly was my attempt to provide some evidence as to what is going on. If you doubt that the email is authentic, I will be happy to provide you a copy with the full email headers. I can also provide you with a copy of the PM Kelly confirming that she sent the email and her request for me to take it down.

wnolan1992

concerned_ul wrote: »

It's not hearsay when the CO herself emails some of the class reps and asks them to propose motions at the EGM. The email was sent by Kelly, otherwise, why would she sent me a PM confirming that she sent it, and asking for it to be removed?

I didn't post the email because of the allegations that certain sabbats haven't been doing their job, I posted it for two reasons:

1) The way the sabbats have handled the whole issue - the rumours about what has been going on only surfaced following a blog post by the CSO and a Facebook status update from the CO. The silence from the other sabbats has been deafening. Derek is the SU President, at what point is he going to turn around and show show leadership and tell the sabbats to cop themselves on and do the job they were elected, and get paid, to do?

2) The way Kelly contacted some of the class reps undermines the whole process of proposing any motions at the EGM. Following this email, how are we supposed to know if any motions that are proposed tomorrow are proposed because they are best for the students, or because Kelly asked her friends to do it because she can't?

I have no more an idea of what's going on in the SU than any other student, but I do know that the SU have been far from transparent on what's going on. The sabbats have put themselves into this position, and have fed the rumour mill far more than I have. Posting the email from Kelly was my attempt to provide some evidence as to what is going on. If you doubt that the email is authentic, I will be happy to provide you a copy with the full email headers. I can also provide you with a copy of the PM Kelly confirming that she sent the email and her request for me to take it down.

I apologise, the email had been taken down before I got a chance to see it. My original post wasn't directed at that email (as I'd heard from several people about it's contents last night).

concerned_ul

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I apologise, the email had been taken down before I got a chance to see it. My original post wasn't directed at that email (as I'd heard from several people about it's contents last night).

That's fair enough. That's why I posted it, so that people could have something concrete to discuss. There are so many rumours going around, and it seems that the SU has done nothing to squash them. I do not consider myself to be pro-CSO/anti-CO or vice versa, but I do think it important that people know something of what is actually going on. If I had received an email that the CSO had sent out, I would have published that in the same manner.

If the SU had been more forthcoming with information, then I would not have gotten involved and published the email. I'm just sick and tired of the sabbats treating the SU as their own little fiefdom and forgetting that the students of UL put them there to do a job. (I'll qualify that by saying not all the sabbats have acted/thought like that, but certainly the majority.)

wnolan1992

concerned_ul wrote: »

That's fair enough. That's why I posted it, so that people could have something concrete to discuss. There are so many rumours going around, and it seems that the SU has done nothing to squash them. I do not consider myself to be pro-CSO/anti-CO or vice versa, but I do think it important that people know something of what is actually going on. If I had received an email that the CSO had sent out, I would have published that in the same manner.

Agree completely. They should have released an official statement after the original thread that made all the accusations. An official statement confirming that majority were true/untrue should have been released. All we've got is a blog post confirming it, and an email from the same person.

Now personally, I tend to believe the CO's confirmations, but that's because I'm biased in that I've worked with her in ULFM. But another person could easily take the point of view that she has an axe to grind.

We had better get some serious clarifications on these rumours tomorrow... and if it can be proven that they are true (financial records, etc,) then I'll be leading the charge calling for a certain sabbat's resignation.

highlydebased

Due to lack of quorum at council this evening no amendments/proposals were put forward.

wnolan1992

highlydebased wrote: »

Due to lack of quorum at council this evening no amendments/proposals were put forward.

Ah Jaysus...

Polar Ice

highlydebased wrote: »

lack of quorum at council this evening

Surprise surprise, nothing new there

concerned_ul

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Agree completely. They should have released an official statement after the original thread that made all the accusations. An official statement confirming that majority were true/untrue should have been released. All we've got is a blog post confirming it, and an email from the same person.

Now personally, I tend to believe the CO's confirmations, but that's because I'm biased in that I've worked with her in ULFM. But another person could easily take the point of view that she has an axe to grind.

We had better get some serious clarifications on these rumours tomorrow... and if it can be proven that they are true (financial records, etc,) then I'll be leading the charge calling for a certain sabbat's resignation.

Hear, hear. You've hit the nail on the head - if the rumours have any basis in fact, then surely the CO should have gone down the official route rather than posting it on Facebook?

I'm not so willing to side with the CO on this, not because I have an axe to grind, or that I think she's wrong, but because the accusations are extremely serious and until I see some evidence, I'm not going to make any judgements.

canned_ulkc

I think in terms of that email being posted you've missed the point somewhat. And in a way contradicted yourself.

I hope you don't take this as a personal attack - it's not the intention - but I would like to address a few things which could have been done differently and put all in a better position to be able to demand a statement/action from the SU.

First, you insist that these are facts. That's fair enough but I think you should forgive others for not taking them as such when they are posted from an anonymous account. That fact is fundamental - some may take your word for it but IMO it is dangerous to assume that you as an anonymous poster are beyond judgements of trust.

Second, you have basically been saying "Look at these specific breaches/abuses of procedure which I deliver to you in what many will perceive as an inappropriate way".
IMO exposing details like what you have alleged is not necessary in order to cast light on improper conduct. Such details do not need to be on a public forum, harming people's reputations.

So what is the alternative?
To simply go to the union and ask them to publicly address the issue within a stated timeframe.....
In parallel, you could have come here and stated that you have email evidence of what is in your opinion improper use of Sabbat office by contacting class reps in order to encourage motions designed to draw attention to the alleged misconduct of another sabbatical officer.

Again, not a personal attack but it would inform people that there is stuff going on without making any allegations in any direction and has a reasonable expectation of a response from the SU.

canned_ulkc

http://www.thomondstudenttimes.com/index.php/features/158-egm1