ULSU EGM

OhMSGlive

highlydebased wrote: »

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

Christ. Were we off by much?

concerned_ul

canned_ulkc wrote: »

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.

You've raised some reasonable points, and I don't take it personally. When I created this account I knew that using an account with no posting history would look suspect, but I chose this way because the emails were sent to be in confidence, and I wanted to ensure that it couldn't get back to the people involved.

I could have gone to the SU, but considering that the SU have not provided any information about what is happening to date, I don't have any confidence that they would reply or engage with me.

There are plenty of allegations floating around as is, and I felt that if I had just paraphrased, or alluded to the email, then I would only be adding to the confusion. In those circumstances I felt that the proper course of action was to publish the email in its entirety.

I don't expect people to just accept my word. I would much prefer that people ask the questions for themselves and come to an opinion based on the facts, and not just based on the speculation floating around the place.

I fully accept that I could have handled this differently, I don't expect, (nor do I want), everyone to agree with my methods/ reasoning. I have no problem engaging with anyone that can make their argument in a clear and reasoned way.

Thanks for your post, it's good to get other people's opinion and views on these things.

horsemeat

can someone confirm there will be an audio recording available of today?

polar? jasonp?

where's the venue also

OhMSGlive

horsemeat wrote: »

can someone confirm there will be an audio recording available of today?

polar? jasonp?

where's the venue also

I've confirmation from highlydebased that it will be recorded in some form. The venue is the Jean Monnet (DG-016). If you go in the front door (ski slopes) and go just around the corner, you'll see the door.

bazkennedy

live blogs:
TST: http://www.thomondstudenttimes.com/index.php/features/159-liveblog

An Focal: http://www.anfocal.ie/uncategorized/1272/egm-live-blog

And the twitter hashtag is #ulegm

Mikel91

*Sigh*I know it wouldnt be a slight bit difficult but I'd have liked ULFM to cover it live.

THe one week I'm out gragh

sceptre

A few points:

Firstly, from a moderator perspective, if anyone's going to make specific allegations against anyone (yes, even a full-time elected SU officer), you need some sort of evidence to make it stick, to make it useful, to make it so that it won't be deleted.

There's nothing wrong with being critical of elected officials - in fact, it's a cornerstone of democracy (arguably the cornerstone of democracy) and everyone with working grey matter in their heads would appreciate that.

Evidence is worth something. Even hearsay based on evidence is worth something (despite what people think, most court evidence is in fact hearsay - as long as it's backed up with something useful, it's perfectly reasonable).

From a non-moderator perspective (holding on to common sense, mind you):

I don't have a problem with people being criticised in public - in fact, I rather welcome it. Always have. Always will. Given that there are very specific allegations against, in this case, a specific person, there are ways to verify those allegations or find that they're baseless. For a start, there's a general meeting at 2pm. There's nothing at all wrong with asking, in public at such a meeting, questions like "Is it true that..." Specific concerns with regard to expenses claims can be easily addressed. The person in question can say whether or not a concern has any basis in fact. The person responsible for processing expenses claims can verify whether or not such expenses claims were submitted and processed (i.e. paid out). Then it's up to people to decide whether what has happened is reasonable or not, honest or dishonest, idle baseless gossip or a gross breach of trust with student funds making a resignation and/or further action necessary. That way you either get to clear the name of the person involved or decide to organise a feathers and tar party.

If you don't ask the questions, you're not going to get answers.


Dealing with the specific proposals at the EGM itself, there are a number of options. Drop CSO, drop CO, drop both, keep both. There are also a few other options with regard to the rate of pay of elected officers and the hours paid to elected officers.

The current constitutionally-mandated salary for full-time elected officers is the current minimum wage plus a euro per hour. You could consider dropping the "plus a euro". That's a reduction in staff costs to the union of 5*44*52*1 euros a year (or €11,440 euros in total).

At the moment, SU officers are paid for 44 hours per week (the extra over 40 is to cater for meetings that are held outside of the 40 hours per week that would be regarded as the formal hours required of the officials (realistically, it's significantly higher than that of course). You could consider dropping the 44 hours back to 40. That's a reduction in staff costs to the union of 5*4*52*9.65 a year (or €10,036 in total).

Combine the two and you get a reduction in staff costs per year of ((5*40*52*1)+(5*4*52*9.65)) (the first figure is dropped by four hours as those are accounted fully by the second) or €20,436 for a year.

As the current pay of a full-time officer is 44*52*9.65 (€22,079), you've just saved the cost of an entire one by everyone taking a hit.

Now, looking at the specific positions. While there have been some quite good CSOs in the past six years (in particular Alannah Turner did an excellent job of defining the role and working for its relevance in its initial year and, from talking to people whose opinions are worth something to me, Viv Grisewood was quite good last year), on the whole, no-one could really argue that it's provided sufficient value measured over the course of the lifetime of the position. There's a full-time Ents officer currently employed and, essentially, given that cash is tight, if you're going to get rid of one position, the CSO position is the one that you need to eliminate. There's a saving of €22,079 a year from doing it. Add it to what I've outlined as the potential savings from dropping the paid hourly base to 40 and the hourly rate by a euro (for the remaining four officers, that would be 22,079 plus 16,349, making €38,428 saved per year without any noticeable decrease in service.

A few people have mentioned that the pay of a full-time officer is €28,000 a year. I can't make that figure based on the hourly rate and the hours paid. If the pay is €28,000 rather than €22,079, the hourly rate or hours paid must be higher than €9.65 and 44 hours per week. Which doesn't seem in line with previous practice, if so.

With regard to the position of CO, as it's being proposed to swap an elected position for an appointed one, with the former 12 month being replaced by a 10 month contract, it's not really being proposed to drop it for financial saving (although there is a 16% drop in wage costs for one position associated with the change). As the student handbook (issued to first years) is knocked together over the summer, I'm not entirely sure that this has been allowed for in the plan - the handbook makes a wad of money for the SU (AFAIR, the one I did made about 20k). Still, it's not being done as a cost-saving measure so that's a decision to decide solely whether having an election to pick one is better or worse than the SU officers appointing one. Your mileage may vary, as they say. Worth noting that whatever you consider the independence level of the office (and associated publications) in recent years, you're highly unlikely to see any level of that if one is appointed.

Me, if the SU had to save the amount of cash it has to save, I'd drop the 44 hour paid week to 40, drop the pay by a euro per hour, drop CSO and keep CO. The first two haven't been placed on the table as options (at least not yet). That's the saving of €38,428 I explained above.

Asking questions and being inquisitive are your biggest assets, including as members of any democratic organisation answerable to its members. That's why you should ask them.

Yeah, I know I'm posting this after the EGM has started. The points are still as valid though.

Jester252

What happen with the An Focal live blog it stop working just before the CO motion

phish

The pay for the sabs is for 56 weeks not 52 because they are paid while they train in the next years officer so it is around 28k.

wnolan1992

For those that don't know, both CSO and CO were abolished. Motion to abolish the CO ammended to allow for students to put forward motions to decide on how to deal with the CO's duties at the AGM in week 8.



Ugh...

CO: Why did they ignore the calls for a recount when the votes were so close... and why were so many people abstaining? That makes no sense to me.

I'm at least happy that it was amended to allow us to put forward ideas for ULFM and An Focal.


And I'm glad Paddy finally put an end to the speculation. I think if he'd come out on Monday morning to clarify these things in the manner he did today would have saved a lot of bother.


Also, why were the wordings of the motions not made known more widely? The agenda I read on Friday didn't have them IIRC.

reunion

wnolan1992 wrote: »

For those that don't know, both CSO and CO were abolished. Motion to abolish the CO ammended to allow for students to put forward motions to decide on how to deal with the CO's duties at the AGM in week 8.



Ugh...

CO: Why did they ignore the calls for a recount when the votes were so close... and why were so many people abstaining? That makes no sense to me.

I'm at least happy that it was amended to allow us to put forward ideas for ULFM and An Focal.


And I'm glad Paddy finally put an end to the speculation. I think if he'd come out on Monday morning to clarify these things in the manner he did today would have saved a lot of bother.


Also, why were the wordings of the motions not made known more widely? The agenda I read on Friday didn't have them IIRC.

Anyone can submit purposals to the AGM later this semester (is it week 8?) so you can submit who would take responsibility for each position. As TST points out you can submit to reinstate a position or make new ones.

freyners

so was there any validity to what paddy was accused of

wnolan1992

freyners wrote: »

so was there any validity to what paddy was accused of

He came out and made a full statement, which I gather he'll be posting, but to synopsize without putting words in his mouth:

500e for Buses to Dublin: Was not for his friends, was for a fundraising event which raised 2054e, which the SU were asked to organise. I can't remember the exact wording of what he said but that's the gist.

300e for Taxis: All invoices were made out to Paddy Rockett. No one else. They were paid by him from his own money.

Sleeping in his office: He said he had, on occasion, slept there after working late into the night, but never with any regularity because "That couch smells of ham and bread."


He seemed really genuine. So I'm hoping that's an end to it.

Jester252

Did Kelly say any thing about her blog post where she confirimed most of the rumors about Paddy

djnr8

freyners wrote: »

so was there any validity to what paddy was accused of

None

Polar Ice

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Also, why were the wordings of the motions not made known more widely? The agenda I read on Friday didn't have them IIRC.

Was the full wording not circulated to all students?

Denners.ie

wnolan1992 wrote: »

He came out and made a full statement, which I gather he'll be posting, but to synopsize without putting words in his mouth:

500e for Buses to Dublin: Was not for his friends, was for a fundraising event which raised 2054e, which the SU were asked to organise. I can't remember the exact wording of what he said but that's the gist.

300e for Taxis: All invoices were made out to Paddy Rockett. No one else. They were paid by him from his own money.

Sleeping in his office: He said he had, on occasion, slept there after working late into the night, but never with any regularity because "That couch smells of ham and bread."


He seemed really genuine. So I'm hoping that's an end to it.

Jester252 wrote: »

Did Kelly say any thing about her blog post where she confirimed most of the rumors about Paddy

What kind of era are we living in that baseless accusations can go unpunished, especially when some people will have an indebted misconception about the CSO(CEO) now?

From somebody who has no affiliation to either the CSO (CEO) or CO, I wholeheartedly believe that Kelly O'Brien is lucky such actions are not being taken further. Despicable (borderline disgusting) behaviour and if anything she is portraying herself as the catalyst in the current disharmonious aura surrounding the SU.

wnolan1992

Jester252 wrote: »

Did Kelly say any thing about her blog post where she confirimed most of the rumors about Paddy

She said (and I paraphrase) that Paddy wasn't doing his job to a satisfactory standard, and she stood by that, and the others seemed to be in agreement. Which upon reflection is probably what she was confirming, it was the ambiguity of the post which led to mass confusion.

Polar Ice wrote: »

Was the full wording not circulated to all students?

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. IIRC the Agenda(can't find a copy atm) didn't have the wording that was there today. (Am open to correction)

Cpt_Blackbeard

So, Kelly confirmed false rumours about Paddy? If this proves to be true, I can't wait to see the back of her. She has come across as an entitled * poorly in both her outbursts on here and with the recent facebookgate. I won't say anything about her petproject ULFM as I know that some posters here are invested in it.

Polar Ice

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

So, Kelly confirmed false rumours about Paddy? If this proves to be true, I can't wait to see the back of her. She has come across as an entitled * poorly in both her outbursts on here and with the recent facebookgate. I won't say anything about her petproject ULFM as I know that some posters here are invested in it.

She clearly states on the Communications Officer blog that she professional confirms "that a lot of what was in it, was true":

This brings me on to something on Boards.ie that I was alerted to over the weekend. Though I didn’t get to see the original post, I gleaned much of its content from reading the comments that followed. I have a vague idea who the original poster was and, while there were a few inaccuracies and the tone was not… shall we say, desirable, for the Union as a whole, I can confirm that a lot of what was in it, was true. As this is the blog of the CO, and not of me personally, I can’t really go into detail as to the allegations made in the thread… I can only hope the majority of you saw it and know what I’m on about. If you’re totally lost as to my meaning right now then I do apologise!

Source: http://sucommunications.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/the-harsh-reality/

wnolan1992

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

So, Kelly confirmed false rumours about Paddy? If this proves to be true, I can't wait to see the back of her. She has come across as an entitled * poorly in both her outbursts on here and with the recent facebookgate. I won't say anything about her petproject ULFM as I know that some posters here are invested in it.

Technically, she didn't confirm any specific rumours. There were rumours about expenses and rumours about him not doing his job correctly. She confirmed today that he wasn't doing his job correctly. She also said in the original blog post that there were inaccuracies in the information, which could have meant the expenses allegations.

To sum up, this has been badly handled on all sides. She shouldn't have been so ambiguous in the post, Paddy should have clarified straight away that these weren't true.

He said at the meeting that he didn't want to engage with people who hide behind anonymity and make such libelous statements, which I can respect. But when the allegations are to do with students' money in any way, regardless if the allegations are made anonymously or not, they should be dealt with. It would have taken very little effort just to release a statement with basically everything he said today in it.


EDIT: "Not doing his job correctly" is poorly phrased... I guess a better way of putting it would be "He wasn't doing his job to the best of his ability."

Jester252

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Technically, she didn't confirm any specific rumours. There were rumours about expenses and rumours about him not doing his job correctly. She confirmed today that he wasn't doing his job correctly. She also said in the original blog post that there were inaccuracies in the information, which could have meant the expenses allegations.

To sum up, this has been badly handled on all sides. She shouldn't have been so ambiguous in the post, Paddy should have clarified straight away that these weren't true.

He said at the meeting that he didn't want to engage with people who hide behind anonymity and make such libelous statements, which I can respect. But when the allegations are to do with students' money in any way, regardless if the allegations are made anonymously or not, they should be dealt with. It would have taken very little effort just to release a statement with basically everything he said today in it.


EDIT: "Not doing his job correctly" is poorly phrased... I guess a better way of putting it would be "He wasn't doing his job to the best of his ability."

I would like to see Kelly make a public widthdrawl of that post. She did falsely confirm the rumor about Paddy. It would go a long way was into restoring some faith in the SU.

TheTownie

wnolan1992 wrote: »

EDIT: "Not doing his job correctly" is poorly phrased... I guess a better way of putting it would be "He wasn't doing his job to the best of his ability."

That would be a bit presumptuous.

More like "Not fulfilling the requirements of the job/position".

Not saying has or hasn't, as I simply don't know.

Jester252

Just a quick question did Paddy provide any back up to disprove the false claims

freyners

im going to have to side with jester on this one. She clearly says alot of it is true when it turns out that the majority of the allegations were false. She is very lucky if nothing comes out of that because its just as bad as the person who put it up

wnolan1992

Jester252 wrote: »

Just a quick question did Paddy provide any back up to disprove the false claims

Nothing concrete, but he said he was willing to provide accounts.

Brains?

one thing I'm even more confused about is the shops though, I dont feel like they gave any definitive answers about them.

Ok, I understand Cappa shop making a loss, but Dromroe? It serves the two villages (which is about 1500 people I think??), but for arguments sake we'll say 1000 people, if they all spent E5 each a week in the shop, I know I used to spend that anyway, maybe more sometimes, thats E5000 a week taken in.

I have no idea about wages (even though they didnt let anyone go so the wages is still being paid??) but say it came to E1000 a week, thats still E4000 a week, approx E16,000 a month! Granted you have to factor into account rates, electricity, rent, cost of stock, etc., I dont see it going above that!

So how can it be making a loss? or am I missing out on something here??

My village at home has only like a thousand people and we can support two shops!

Ok, rant over, I just really miss that shop!! :P

freyners

i realy doubt even 1000 people live between dromroe and thomond


80 ish apartments in each, max 6 in each 960

take away 60 due to some of them being 5 bed or 4 and thats only 900,

then people buyig stuff in the main shop and not using that one

Bored Accountant

Brains? wrote: »

one thing I'm even more confused about is the shops though, I dont feel like they gave any definitive answers about them.

Ok, I understand Cappa shop making a loss, but Dromroe? It serves the two villages (which is about 1500 people I think??), but for arguments sake we'll say 1000 people, if they all spent E5 each a week in the shop, I know I used to spend that anyway, maybe more sometimes, thats E5000 a week taken in.

I have no idea about wages (even though they didnt let anyone go so the wages is still being paid??) but say it came to E1000 a week, thats still E4000 a week, approx E16,000 a month! Granted you have to factor into account rates, electricity, rent, cost of stock, etc., I dont see it going above that!

So how can it be making a loss? or am I missing out on something here??

My village at home has only like a thousand people and we can support two shops!

Ok, rant over, I just really miss that shop!! :P

well like most shops would be getting in around at the highest point, 20% margin on all products. alot of products would even have a lower margin than that, and then they have to pay all there fixed costs of rent, rates, light & heat out of the profit there making off the products.
Prices in all the shops were fairly competitive aswell compared to other shops. You probably pay alot higher for the same products at home as there taking a higher margin off products.

Jester252

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

Just a quick question did Paddy provide any back up to disprove the false claims

Nothing concrete, but he said he was willing to provide accounts.

I would like to see them I just find it odd that when someone post the rumors we told asked him/her for evidenice to back it up. Paddy answer them ( little bit cryptic on some judging from the twitter ) and we accepted them. I think we should ask to see the proof.