Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Questionable Spending by UCC Societies' Guild

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭pirateninja


    This statement is in response to the articles that appeared in last week’s Motley Magazine. (16/02/2012)



    The articles made several points concerning UCC Societies that were dangerously factually inaccurate and formed in such a way as to mislead the reader.



    Let us start by saying that the Guild Officers, similar to many Societies’ Committees, devote on average 21 hours of time per week to their own portfolios, be they Finance or PR, and to being constantly available to Society members for help and advice.

    The kind of work that the Guild Executive and Societies committees do affects actual changes to life in UCC. The standard and quality of our Societies can and has changed the ranking of the University at an International Level (cited in the QS World University Rankings last year).



    As stated in Motley: “while conducting this [month-long] investigation into the Guild Executive, we spoke to people involved in Societies”. I would like to point out that only once during this investigation was the Guild Executive contacted for any purpose and that was at the print deadline. Had we been asked at any point during the month while the article was being published for assistance we would have been more than happy to sit down with the writers and aid them in ensuring that their articles were factually accurate.



    Firstly there is a confusion concerning the rules we have in place to govern how money is spent. The articles suggest that financial decisions are made on whim, with preference given to certain Societies above others. The Guild Executive Finance Committee uses a document known as the Schedule of Allowances to govern how money is granted to Societies. All Committee Members are made aware of how this document works and Finance Officers and Auditors are given specific broken down training in the individual parts.

    It is important to note that 96% of applications for funding are approved in one form or another. Grounds under which we would deny funding would be in the case of a Society asking for a large amount of money having done little else all year to justify the spending; an application contravening the Schedule or similar.



    There also seems to be a level of confusion regarding the approval of Societies.

    We are cited as having approved two similar Societies in the past - Sophia Society and the Philosophical Society. It should be clarified that Sophia Society, which no longer exists, was a Society devoted to the discussion of Philosophical theory, the Philosoph is a debating Society. Grounds under which we would deny a new Society would be in the case of a Society being a single issue political lobbying Society, or being already covered by an existing Society.



    At this point it is important to point out that all of our decisions are open to appeal, in the first instance to Societies and then to the Academic Council for the Student Experience, which is our own governing body within the University. All decisions within the Guild Executive that individuals or Societies’ feel are unfair are invited to appeal to this Council who then have the power to overturn our decision.

    On the issue of transparency: the UCC Societies Guild Executive prides itself on having the most transparent, representative, student-lead Societies Executive in the Country. In other Universities, financial decisions are made by University staff members only, with little or no student input and no accountability to the students. In UCC we have a student-run Societies Executive, this means that we better understand individual Society needs and respond accordingly, having come from individual Societies ourselves and been elected by Societies at our AGM.

    In UCC, students are given every opportunity to control how best to spend their money. Committees are elected by students, they in turn elect the Guild Executive from within their own members. The Guild Executive is responsible for the financial decisions that are posted, every week, to all Societies’ members online for maximum transparency. If there are any issues with decisions that we have made then members are always encouraged to contact their Guild Rep, the Finance Officer or the President; who will be happy to sit down and go through individual issues with applications.



    This year we have started two new projects to increase transparency in the decisions of the Executive. The Societies’ Senate is an event, which anyone can attend, where Society Committees have a vote on decisions. At the two Senates we have held this year people have had the opportunity to question our decisions and vote on issues with serious outcomes, such as rejoining BICS. At both of these events we had a turnout of 80 or so Societies’ reps.

    In addition to the Societies’ Senate, we were happy recently (30/01/2012) to announce that we will be putting together a committee, independent of the Guild Executive, to examine our existing structures and suggest improvements. These suggestions will form a large part of the UCC Societies Strategic Plan for the next few years.



    To suggest that there is a democratic deficit in Societies is bizarre given the amount of direct involvement the individual members have in decisions made. The magazine refers to the decision, by the Auditors, to make the President an optional paid position as “undemocratic”. The decision to make the option available for those going for the position of President was not one taken lightly and took many years to implement. Beginning in 2009 the Guild Executive began exploring the options with regard to the evolution of Societies. Societies voted on the issue three times between 2010 and 2011 to ensure that any issues with the optional paid Presidency could be ironed out. Each time the Societies returned results resoundingly in favour of the idea.



    On the issue of what is termed “an increase in extravagant public spending”, the article does not take into account that every single instance cited were decisions that were taken before this year’s Societies Guild Executive took office. It ought to be made clear that the expenses referred to were not spent by this year’s Guild Executive and such expenses, if they were indeed spent, would not be something that would be approved by this year’s Guild Executive.



    On a broader point, every year the Guild does host an annual crossover dinner for both the incoming and outgoing Guild Executives, a group of 18 – 20 people. As outlined above, the Guild Executive feels that the amount of work put in by the Officers throughout the year is considerable and that this reward can be justified, of course up to a reasonable point.



    At this juncture, we should point out that this year’s Guild Executive has taken active steps to move expenditure away from exclusive events, instead transferring expenditure to things like Auditor’s Training, which has been the largest single item, and per person item, of expenditure this year. This year we held Auditor’s Training for cheaper per head and it was attended by more people. Auditor Training is a vital exercise that allows Society Auditors, and indeed other committee members who attend on behalf of their Auditor, to bond and learn. The Training encourages participation and collaboration and the dividends can be seen on campus week on week.

    It is also important to acknowledge the genuine hard graft and hours of, often unrecognized, organizing and work that the Auditors and committee members do every year. It is incredibly important that Society members feel the value of their work and how much it is appreciated by the college. We do our best to reward this hard work throughout the year.



    Following on from this, particularly singled out is the new digital screen. When UCC installs similar screens in the ORB, the Boole basement, Library, the Student Centre, the Main Rest, the West Wing, the Kane Building, the Western Gateway, the CEC and Brookefield these are presumably “justified”. Our screen was erected as means of creating great visibility for Societies to the wider student body. The information on our screen changes every single day while the other digital screens on campus, which Societies are not permitted to use, change perhaps four times a year at most. The new screen displays Society events and notices prominently, right outside the library, where hundreds of students pass daily.



    This year’s Guild Executive has not misspent one red cent. We have, at no point, made a decision that was in any way wasteful, extravagant or for personal gain. Our accounts will be subject to the scrutiny of our members at our AGM in five weeks time and we are confident that they will stand up.



    Finally, we must express our deep disappointment with the manner in which the writers at Motley conducted their “investigation”. They claimed that we were contacted for a response and that we declined. This is misleading in the extreme, in that while it is true that we were contacted, we were contacted mere hours before the piece went to print. We are not prone to making a response hastily, and without fact-checking, and so declined to comment. One must question the journalistic integrity of a magazine whose definition of an investigation involves not contacting any single person to whom the story pertains, relying solely on anecdotal evidence and one source who they refuse to name.

    We regret that they feel it was appropriate to print a story with such deep and serious accusations, many errors and lacking any reliable source. We believe that the staff at Motley need to reconsider how they operate and endeavor to a higher standard of journalism.

    Found this on fb about 15 mins ago..To be honest I think the response is nearly better written than either of the articles.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,926 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Aye, guild wrote a good response to it. Also, am in societies and I've had no problems with them. They're all pretty sound this year, and last


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    titan18 wrote: »
    Aye, guild wrote a good response to it. Also, am in societies and I've had no problems with them. They're all pretty sound this year, and last

    The issue isn't the Guild not being nice; it's with the way our money is being spent. I don't feel spending €200 on a bottle of wine by public representatives using public money is justifiable, no matter how nice the people doing it may be.

    I don't think the response is a particularly strong one. It's also clear that the Guild don't really believe what they're saying. If they did genuinely believe they were in the right, why would they need to get so defensive? 'When UCC installs similar screens in the ORB, the Boole basement, Library, the Student Centre, the Main Rest, the West Wing, the Kane Building, the Western Gateway, the CEC and Brookefield these are presumably “justified”.'

    It's also worth remarking that this years Socs Guild president was last year's Finance Officer, so trying to wash their hands of it by saying that this year spending has been okay doesn't work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,926 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    The issue isn't the Guild not being nice; it's with the way our money is being spent. I don't feel spending €200 on a bottle of wine by public representatives using public money is justifiable, no matter how nice the people doing it may be.

    I don't think the response is a particularly strong one. It's also clear that the Guild don't really believe what they're saying. If they did genuinely believe they were in the right, why would they need to get so defensive? 'When UCC installs similar screens in the ORB, the Boole basement, Library, the Student Centre, the Main Rest, the West Wing, the Kane Building, the Western Gateway, the CEC and Brookefield these are presumably “justified”.'

    It's also worth remarking that this years Socs Guild president was last year's Finance Officer, so trying to wash their hands of it by saying that this year spending has been okay doesn't work.

    Afaik, the €200 is an exaggeration. Also, its not just the Finance Officer and President who decide on money, they can't actually just spend **** without approval themselves.

    Also, in regards to the screen. Whilst it's not used too much atm, a lot of societies(including ones I'm on) aren't using it to its potential atm.It could eventually pay for itself by reducing costs of postering


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭Aodan83


    I don't think the response is a particularly strong one. It's also clear that the Guild don't really believe what they're saying. If they did genuinely believe they were in the right, why would they need to get so defensive?
    Considering it was quite a personal attack on the Guild, they handled it pretty well. The article didn't go so far as to pin the blame on any one person in particular, but it did call into question the integrity of the Guild as a whole. The response addresses everything in the article. The part you quoted is, in my opinion, the only section where the Guild seemed to become overly defensive, and even then one could argue it was justified.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 656 ✭✭✭Richard Cranium


    The Guild, in their response, have admitted (albeit tacitly) that they have spent outrageous sums of money on themselves in the past, yet haven't even hinted at an apology or even a little bit of humility. In fact their response essentially says that they deserved the lavish spending on themselves. This was bad enough, but it was made even worse by past and present Guild members making light of the situation on Facebook. This isn't just Journosoc whining about not getting funding for one thing or another, this is students wanting to know that their money isn't being wasted by those entrusted with it.

    I'm a society committee member too and I'm disgusted at their attitude. It reflects badly on everyone on society committees (not least Finance Officers) if the regulators (ie the Societies Guild) can't even be trusted with students' capitation fees.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,926 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    The Guild, in their response, have admitted (albeit tacitly) that they have spent outrageous sums of money on themselves in the past, yet haven't even hinted at an apology or even a little bit of humility. In fact their response essentially says that they deserved the lavish spending on themselves. This was bad enough, but it was made even worse by past and present Guild members making light of the situation on Facebook. This isn't just Journosoc whining about not getting funding for one thing or another, this is students wanting to know that their money isn't being wasted by those entrusted with it.

    I'm a society committee member too and I'm disgusted at their attitude. It reflects badly on everyone on society committees (not least Finance Officers) if the regulators (ie the Societies Guild) can't even be trusted with students' capitation fees.

    I'm a finance officer and I disagree. If you understand the schedule of allowances properly, and understand how it works, you're rarely turned down unless you're taking the piss.

    Also,the making light of it was fun, and I did it myself on it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 649 ✭✭✭Jeebus


    How much money is wasted printing Motley, as a matter of interest?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    titan18 wrote: »
    Also,the making light of it was fun, and I did it myself on it.

    A few months ago Enda Kenny gave a political advisor a raise to €127,000 in the midst of widespread budget cuts and tax raises. Do you think this is a bit of fun? Because €127,000 divided by the number of Irish taxpayers is less than half €1,000 divided by the number of UCC students. On a payer-by-payer basis, these things by the Guild cost more than national things, like pay rises for friends, that receive widespread condemnation.

    That the absolute figures are comparatively small does not make it any less worse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭x43r0


    The figure for the Champagne was exaggerated - let's just get that out of the way.

    The crossover meal is entirely reasonable. If you paid the 6 officers (not the president) a part time wage for the work they put in the yearly total would dwarf the bill for the annual crossover meal. I think bregruding them a dinner once a year is just ridiculous.

    On the presidential wage, a point that everyone seems to be missing is that the wage is optional. This year's president chose to take it, next year's might prefer not to take a year out and do it unpaid.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,926 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    A few months ago Enda Kenny gave a political advisor a raise to €127,000 in the midst of widespread budget cuts and tax raises. Do you think this is a bit of fun? Because €127,000 divided by the number of Irish taxpayers is less than half €1,000 divided by the number of UCC students. On a payer-by-payer basis, these things by the Guild cost more than national things, like pay rises for friends, that receive widespread condemnation.

    That the absolute figures are comparatively small does not make it any less worse.

    Tbf, as poster above said Champagne figure was exaggerated. In regards to the meal, there'd probably be somewhere around 15 people,maybe more, going to it.Considering the amount of work they do throughout the year, I see nothing wrong with it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82 ✭✭SEEMagazine


    This reminds me of the JuryGate scandal that broke in the paper years back. It seemed that the Philosoph committee had stayed in Jurys, on the society's tab, for Worlds. Or maybe some large IV event, but Worlds seems right.
    Of course it was just that the hotel needed names to associate with each room in order to book them, since they didn't know the names of the team members in attendance at the time. Oh the hilarity that ensued.

    I am of course, of the opinion that while the current Guild and associated Accommodations Office staff are of a more professional bent than in my formative years, they have lost a certain amount of that classic Irish flexibilty. I do recall fantastic Christmas parties in Accomm, a wheelie bin full of iced beer, etc etc.
    Of course back then we used Compaq 368's, and maybe 4 people had mobile phones.

    Anyway, while I do think the ethos of the Guild has become more 'rigid iron rod up the ass', I couldn't imagine them splashing the cash on a bottle of bubbly they're not equipped to appreciate. Strawberries to a donkey.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    Considering the bar tab for the auditor's training weekend, at the start of this academic year, was €1,600, I doubt all that much has changed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭x43r0


    Byron85 wrote: »
    I doubt all that much has changed.


    Is there much change needed? I mean, expenses are common in any large organisation for clients and in-house social events


    I know some might use the term "Overly lavish" but when things like this occur so sparingly then I don't see the harm.

    I'm not opposed to cutting expenses a little but not to the point where the best you can afford is to give people a can of fanta and a sausage roll and tell them they're having fun.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    x43r0 wrote: »
    Is there much change needed? I mean, expenses are common in any large organisation for clients and in-house social events


    I know some might use the term "Overly lavish" but when things like this occur so sparingly then I don't see the harm.

    I'm not opposed to cutting expenses a little but not to the point where the best you can afford is to give people a can of fanta and a sausage roll and tell them they're having fun.

    A total account of all expenses incurred by the Guild, which is freely available to the student body. As far as I know, the accounts that are published, which is happening in 5 weeks time, only have the totals, not the various items which make up the totals. I'm open to correction on that though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭x43r0


    Byron85 wrote: »
    A total account of all expenses incurred by the Guild, which is freely available to the student body. As far as I know, the accounts that are published, which is happening in 5 weeks time, only have the totals, not the various items which make up the totals. I'm open to correction on that though.


    No you're right, they do present them as totals. But I don't see why if someone picked a total called say "Entertainments" and asked for a further breakdown they couldn't present that. Shouldn't be a problem like, the totals have to come from somewhere so producing a finer grain of account should be viable


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭thebigcheese22


    This is Jerry Larkin, author of one-half of the article mentioned in that Guild response. Just a few clarifications:

    "I would like to point out that only once during this investigation was the Guild Executive contacted for any purpose and that was at the print deadline." - This is severely misleading and follows the general tone of the response in questioning the integrity of Motley Magazine. In order to make sure that we were putting out an article with few errors, we waited until we were happy with the article before seeking a response from the Guild. The Guild had time to send a lengthy threatening email to us, and yet did not issue a response then. Even with their response, they have not directly issued evidence to support their claims. As mentioned by a few posters, publishing their expenses from the year questioned should have been at the top of the list of responses. (That is beside the point that these expenses should be a lot more transparent)

    The response also doesn't mention the fact that the Vice President of the Guild tried to get the printing of the magazine cancelled on the day we went to print. This resulted in the magazine being delayed to the evening of Thursday, meaning that students had less of a chance to read it.

    >mod snip< posting is supposed to be anonymous

    "It ought to be made clear that the expenses referred to were not spent by this year’s Guild Executive and such expenses, if they were indeed spent, would not be something that would be approved by this year’s Guild Executive."

    "As outlined above, the Guild Executive feels that the amount of work put in by the Officers throughout the year is considerable and that this reward can be justified, of course up to a reasonable point." - One presumes that buying a bottle of champagne passes this point.

    Also the final paragraph questioning the whole integrity of the magazine is extremely troublesome. We don't claim that the magazine is perfect and we will completely own up to factual mistakes we made. However, it is extremely difficult to get the full facts when the Guild acts in such an adversarial manner. The ability of student media to question how student bodies are run should always be extremely important to every student, who pays a lot of money in attending the university. With this article we were looking to inform students of the running of a body which has control of so much of their money and which has such an important role in college life. We were also hoping to start a debate on how money is spent, especially so given that funding to third level is being severly cut. I am actually disappointed in the personal level of many attacks on behalf of the Guild, considering we mentioned no names in our article.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭x43r0


    Firstly I haven't even mentioned your magazine in this thread so far let alone question it's integrity.


    As for that story you wrote:

    Taxi claims: Bull****. The guild has an account with a taxi firm that's run by quoting a code. The only person who had that code was the societies officer who runs the desk downstairs (I won't sully his name in this thread because google is always watching).

    An Scolaire account claims: Bull****. Yes the guild had access to that but it was only ever used to buy stationary for the hub as required. The account record would show that. Besides, are you serious? Where's the incentive to misappropriate stationary ffs I know we're talking about student's but come on like

    The meal? Absolutely it was expensive. You don't feed and drink 12 people and keep the bill low unless you've got the messiah and a few loaves of bread handy. The champagne for the record was a bottle of brut which runs at €69 in soho not the €200 which was ridiculously stated in your story.

    The base of your article is hearsay seemingly coming from your anonymous source fúcked off from the guild after foing sh1te all for 3 months and pissed away a valuable student sabbatical someone more deserving should have had in the first place


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22 Achtung!


    x43r0 wrote: »


    The meal? Absolutely it was expensive. You don't feed and drink 12 people and keep the bill low unless you've got the messiah and a few loaves of bread handy. The champagne for the record was a bottle of brut which runs at €69 in soho not the €200 which was ridiculously stated in your story.

    €69 is still a ridiculous price for a bottle of wine...


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭x43r0


    Achtung! wrote: »
    €69 is still a ridiculous price for a bottle of wine...

    I totally accept that and not trying to excuse it but there were no more than one bought


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭Brethitmanhart


    x43r0 wrote: »
    Firstly I haven't even mentioned your magazine in this thread so far let alone question it's integrity.

    As for that story you wrote:

    Taxi claims: Bull****. The guild has an account with a taxi firm that's run by quoting a code. The only person who had that code was the societies officer who runs the desk downstairs (I won't sully his name in this thread because google is always watching).

    An Scolaire account claims: Bull****. Yes the guild had access to that but it was only ever used to buy stationary for the hub as required. The account record would show that. Besides, are you serious? Where's the incentive to misappropriate stationary ffs I know we're talking about student's but come on like

    The meal? Absolutely it was expensive. You don't feed and drink 12 people and keep the bill low unless you've got the messiah and a few loaves of bread handy. The champagne for the record was a bottle of brut which runs at €69 in soho not the €200 which was ridiculously stated in your story.

    The base of your article is hearsay seemingly coming from your anonymous source fúcked off from the guild after foing sh1te all for 3 months and pissed away a valuable student sabbatical someone more deserving should have had in the first place

    How is it hearsay? People who do not understand what hearsay means should stop using it, there was not one single example of hearsay in that piece.

    Taxi Claims - all that your point proves is that if you wanted to order a taxi through the guild you could ask that fella to ring and quote a guild code which would charge the taxi to the guild account. It doesn't mean a person could not have got a taxi on a night for social reasons, kept the receipt and potentially claimed this back by producing the receipt as an expense.
    I'm not suggesting this did happen, I'm just making the point that your explanation doesn't actually prove it's bull**** at all.

    Scolaire - Again doesn't prove it's bull****, just claims it is so.

    Meal - if the champagne was a different price could the guild not just release the receipt?
    If the figure is incorrect It wouldn't effect Motleys journalistic integrity one bit as the information Motley received was from a first hand witness at the dinner, if he lied or was mistaken then it's on him, as far as I'm concerned the guild should be proving otherwise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭x43r0


    Taxi Claims - all that your point proves is that if you wanted to order a taxi through the guild you could ask that fella to ring and quote a guild code which would charge the taxi to the guild account.

    Are you saying a UCC staff member knowingly misappropiated student money on personal taxis?
    It doesn't mean a person could not have got a taxi on a night for social reasons, kept the receipt and potentially claimed this back by producing the receipt as an expense.
    I'm not suggesting this did happen, I'm just making the point that your explanation doesn't actually prove it's bull**** at all.

    That's not possible. Any guild related event that would require the use of a taxi would be well known amongst the group and the staff in the office. Any claim out of the ordinary would be sniffed out immediately and the office wouldn't pay out on it
    Scolaire - Again doesn't prove it's bull****, just claims it is so.

    Claims what is so? That the guild has an account in that shop? We're just playing my word against yours here
    Meal - if the champagne was a different price could the guild not just release the receipt?
    If the figure is incorrect It wouldn't effect Motleys journalistic integrity one bit as the information Motley received was from a first hand witness at the dinner, if he lied or was mistaken then it's on him, as far as I'm concerned the guild should be proving otherwise.

    Go in and ask for a receipt then, just try a bit of manners this time rather than demanding instant accounts.

    As far as I'm concerned your first hand witness has fúck all credibility given thier actions during their brief stint on the guild and subsequent thievery of a sabbatical.

    I don't see how anyboday with a lick of sense would give weight to their stories given the acrimonious circumstances of their departure from the guild


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    Ok, one thing needs to be cleared up. I know who the "source" is (don't know them personally) but what i'm curious about is what did they do that was so wrong during their tenure on the Guild? I haven't been told anything about that.


  • Registered Users, Moderators, Education Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 15,247 Mod ✭✭✭✭rebel girl 15


    After discussing this with the other mods, we have decided to re-open the thread.

    You may discuss the contents of the article and the response as posted above, but any posts that we feel are unfounded allegations against the guild will be deleted and the poster banned

    As this is a thread that has already caused friction, any posts deemed to be attacks on the poster will be deleted immediately and the poster banned

    I can completely understand why the thread was deleted in the first place - it appeared to be a first time poster trying to cause hassle.

    If the thread goes off the specific topics mentioned, I will also re-close the topic


  • Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭heliocentrist


    x43r0 wrote: »
    fúcked off from the guild after foing sh1te all for 3 months and pissed away a valuable student sabbatical someone more deserving should have had in the first place

    Valuable? It's an unpaid sabbatical position, someone who takes it doesn't have to pay a registration fee but there's no stipend involved. No one applied to take an unpaid sabbatical this year (as far as I know?) and the only other person who applied last year failed their course. I doubt the latter would have even applied otherwise. It'll probably never even happen again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭pirateninja


    Valuable? It's an unpaid sabbatical position, someone who takes it doesn't have to pay a registration fee but there's no stipend involved. No one applied to take an unpaid sabbatical this year (as far as I know?) and the only other person who applied last year failed their course. I doubt the latter would have even applied otherwise. It'll probably never even happen again.

    You're wrong about people applying for the unpaid sabbatical, two people did.

    As for people applying last year. 3 people applied and 1 person then withdrew their application after said ex guild member and friends sat down and explained why he deserved it more. Maybe it won't happen again but you could say the guild will never spend 69 euro on a bottle of wine again and that makes this all irrelevant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭heliocentrist


    ok who applied for unpaid sabbaticals this year and which of them is doing it? Fair play to them btw, not a cent in reward and all that work!

    You're talking crap about talking people out of it last year, but i dont doubt that you are a sock puppet.

    69 euro... Dont make me laugh kid. Lies, damned lies and Socs guild ex-presidents.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,926 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    ok who applied for unpaid sabbaticals this year and which of them is doing it? Fair play to them btw, not a cent in reward and all that work!

    You're talking crap about talking people out of it last year, but i dont doubt that you are a sock puppet.

    69 euro... Dont make me laugh kid. Lies, damned lies and Socs guild ex-presidents.

    Are you saying you know more than guild members and people heavily involved in societies?


  • Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭heliocentrist


    ....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭heliocentrist


    I love all the vested interest accounts coming out of the woodwork, titan18 take a bow mate!:)

    For the sake of argument, I'll accept that a 3rd person was thinking of applying, but clarify...

    "after said ex guild member and friends sat down and explained why he deserved it more"

    ...who is 'said ex guild member'? re-read your initial post and I think even a sock-puppet like yourself will accept its ambiguity.

    btw, still waiting for pirateninja to tell us who's on an unpaid sabbat this year. if anyone is, fair play to them, legends!


Advertisement