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

Nominations be open!!

Options
  • 14-03-2009 1:28pm
    #1
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭


    The runners and riders as rumoured so far for elections in Week 9

    President
    Mark Conway
    Ruán Dillon McLoughlin
    Eamonn T. Gardiner

    DP Welfare
    Tony Sheridan
    Mike Toomey
    Deirdre Wilson

    VP Education
    Aoife Finnerty
    Emma Kerins
    David Ryan
    Huw Thomas

    VP Campaigns and Services
    Darragh Bourke
    Fergal Dempsey

    VP Communications
    David Dolphin
    Aoife Ní Raghallaigh


    Names holding interest in one or more positions, but not yet linked to one or another.
    Mark Conway
    A.N Other
    A.N Other

    Outgoing officers cannot be discounted until close of nominations next Friday at 5
    Those not seeking re-election by virtue of their presence on the Electoral and Referenda Board are Damien Cahill and Pa O'Brien

    We'll also be spared chalk markings all over campus as there are more than 10 candidates meaning chalk is banned:D


    This is looking to be a very interesting campaign. Add to that the little plebiscite that we're having (courtesy of moi) to gauge opinion on fee alternatives and we're hopefully looking at breaking the 20% turnout barrier.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    I edited the lists to put the names in alphabetical order. Purely out of my own sense of moral fairness, the guy you're marketing is first in alphabetical order anyway so it's not as though there was anything untoward about the list.

    AN Other gets around, he's been playing football matches lately too.


  • Options
    #3
    rmacm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭rmacm


    Hmmm only recognise 2 of those people....1 Skynetter and a boardsie.

    Can I nominate Cthulhu for a position?


  • Options
    #4
    ergonomics
    Registered Users Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭ergonomics


    There are definitely two boardsies running that I can spot anyway :pac:


  • Options
    #5
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    ergonomics wrote: »
    There are definitely two boardsies running that I can spot anyway :pac:

    And a third apparently, though I haven't yet figured out who it is!

    Best of luck.


  • Options
    #6
    bluedolphin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,421 ✭✭✭bluedolphin


    ninty9er wrote: »
    We'll also be spared chalk markings all over campus as there are more than 10 candidates meaning chalk is banned:D

    Eh, POI: there are no candidates at all until 5pm on Friday!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    bluedolphin wrote: »
    Eh, POI: there are no candidates at all until 5pm on Friday!

    Okay, okay...I've been told by more than 10 people that they are seeking nomination!

    That better;)


  • Options
    #8
    ergonomics
    Registered Users Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭ergonomics


    Just thought I'd mention that I was talking to sceptre earlier and I happened to notice that he had both the President and Communications nomination form...


  • Options
    #9
    bazkennedy
    Registered Users Posts: 395 ✭✭bazkennedy


    ya he was seen in the SU courtyard brandishing the presidential form


  • Options
    #10
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Could our gracious overmod add Mark Conway to the list for President please and also Tony Sheridan for Welfare or so I believe.


  • Options
    #11
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    OK, unfortunately my flat has been broken into and I'm no longer really in the mood to be funny or ****-stirring so I can happily confirm that I'd rather eat my own feet than run for election at this particular point in time. I didn't start that particular rumour, though I was happy to give it short legs as I found it quite funny. And extra funny for me, thanks to the few people who took it seriously and offered me campaign ideas and time, I really appreciate it even though it was really a joke.

    I do have a semi-rambled commentary on why I'd rather eat my own feet which I may post at some point as it is actually relevant to the election and what, you know, student leaders should be doing and all that. Also, I'm a little disappointed in the small number of people who assumed that anyone with a point of view on anything at the UGM must be running for election as they apparently couldn't understand the notion that anyone would do so unless it was to their own benefit. This, incidentally, is what's wrong with student politics in general etc etc - the concept of actual self-sacrifice as opposed to self-aggrandisement can't be understood by some, though happily this isn't true of all.

    Anyhoo, may be a fun week. Hopefully ulvoteforme will be blogging it, even though they typically get it more wrong than right (for example when I ran for PPO they thought I was going to lose:)), I rather enjoy the input of the totally anonymous:pac: commentators.

    As a side-note, now that our current full-time officers will be effectively swept away in a week or so even though they don't leave office until June, as a regular student who's seen more SU teams than most, some very good, some very bad over the years, I've been pleased with their work and they didn't set the building on fire. Still time for that I guess:D.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    dyl10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭dyl10


    I see two boardsies also


  • Options
    #13
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    I'll leave it till tomorrow after the ERB meeting to start campigning here but just before I do

    WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!:D:D:D:D


  • Options
    #14
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Did I hear right in hearing that there's an issue, disagreement or controversy about a particular nomination form declared as being a minute late?


  • Options
    #15
    kaimera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,396 ✭✭✭✭kaimera


    for example when I ran for PPO they thought I was going to lose

    *cough*
    not a chance with the help you got ;) Vote 'S for seamus'


  • Options
    #16
    ergonomics
    Registered Users Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭ergonomics


    Yes, I can confirm that I have filed an objection that my opponent for Communications handed in his nomination form 5 minutes late. This was confirmed by security footage but the issue is on going.


  • Options
    #17
    onedoubleo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭onedoubleo


    Hmmm, i know rules are there for a reason but surely having more people run for positions is better for the Union as a whole.
    It will be interesting to hear how this one works out....
    Anywho's best of luck to all those that are running


  • Options
    #18
    kaimera
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,396 ✭✭✭✭kaimera


    ergonomics wrote: »
    Yes, I can confirm that I have filed an objection that my opponent for Communications handed in his nomination form 5 minutes late. This was confirmed by security footage but the issue is on going.
    good.

    can't have a comms officer being late....if they are tardy with the app form, imagine what it would be like if they won


  • Options
    #19
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    ergonomics wrote: »
    Yes, I can confirm that I have filed an objection that my opponent for Communications handed in his nomination form 5 minutes late. This was confirmed by security footage but the issue is on going.

    Is that not rather petty? Would it not be better that the electorate chose the winner, rather than a win by default?


  • Options
    #20
    klong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭klong


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Is that not rather petty? Would it not be better that the electorate chose the winner, rather than a win by default?

    Rules are there for a reason; if the other would-be communications officer really wanted to run, surely they'd have entered well ahead of the deadline. No sympathy from me, I'm afraid.


  • Options
    #21
    bluedolphin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,421 ✭✭✭bluedolphin


    Can the mods amend the first post with the final runners:

    President
    Mark Conway
    Ruán Dillon McLoughlin
    Eamonn Gardiner

    DP/Welfare
    No nominations. Nominations will open again on Monday at 9am. Forms can be picked up from the reception.

    Education
    David James Collison Ryan
    Aoife Finnerty
    Emma Kerins
    Huw Thomas

    Campaigns & Services
    Darragh Bourke
    Fergal Dempsey
    Michelle Lawlor

    Communications
    Aoife Ni Raghallaigh is currently (as of close of business on Friday) the only confirmed candidate. However, another nomination form was handed in after 5pm from David Dolphin. The Electoral & Referenda will meet to discuss and decide on the issue on Monday.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    ULPaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46 ✭ULPaddy


    klong wrote: »
    Rules are there for a reason; if the other would-be communications officer really wanted to run, surely they'd have entered well ahead of the deadline. No sympathy from me, I'm afraid.

    Agreed! Though I do feel bad for him, he has but himself to blame. It shows an inability to keep to deadlines and carelessness to leave it till too late.

    I'm all for fairness and punishment to be relative to offence, but I still say no, he shouldn't be allowed run if he wasn't in on time. A week was plenty of time to get the nomination completed and submitted. To reiterate KLONG, if he was serious you'd think he would have been in well in time for the close of nominations.

    Congrats to all who did get there nominations in punctually and to quote a friend whom I told of the different candidates "Oh wow, that's interesting. It's gonna be an interesting election." Here's to that! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #23
    ergonomics
    Registered Users Posts: 1,810 ✭✭✭ergonomics


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Is that not rather petty? Would it not be better that the electorate chose the winner, rather than a win by default?

    I can understand why you would think it was petty but the reason I objected was because I believe that if the rules are bent at the start of the election then they will be bent throughout the election and this is not fair on any candidate. As other posters have said, the nominations opened last Friday so there was plenty of time to get the form in, and everyone knew when nominations closed. I feel terrible for the trouble this has caused, but I still stand by my objection.

    As far as I know David does not have an account on boards, so I will not be discussing this issue again here. It's not fair for me to be able to air my side, when he can't. I just wanted to post the facts of what happened before any rumours or speculation started. David has as much right to take issue with to my objection, as I did to object his nomination form being handed in late.


  • Options
    #24
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    ULPaddy wrote: »
    I'm all for fairness and punishment to be relative to offence, but I still say no, he shouldn't be allowed run if he wasn't in on time. A week was plenty of time to get the nomination completed and submitted. To reiterate KLONG, if he was serious you'd think he would have been in well in time for the close of nominations.

    I think it would reflect badly on the union if he were excluded. It would be bad for democracy, there would be no real election or debate. Apart from breaking the rule there is no real reason he shouldn't be allowed to run, he hasn't gained an advantage as far as I can see by submitting late. Its not as if the ballot papers have been printed either.

    Possibly he should be punished (maybe by not allowing his campaign to start until later in the week) but not excluded. Here there is a student that wishes to participate in the union... and isnt that what its all about, student participation, and getting students to want to participate.

    BTW i am not involved with any campaign team :)


  • Options
    #25
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    bluedolphin wrote: »
    Can the mods amend the first post with the final runners
    Thanks for the list! As they're final runners, I put it in a new thread.

    This thread is better served as a discussion on the nomination process or comments about people who didn't run or whatever isn't specifically to do with the declared, nominated and confirmed candidates, if people want that. If they don't the thread just fades away.

    Discussion on the election and confirmed candidates now goes in the other thread please. I fully expect to have to move posts between the two threads, but it'd be cool if I didn't have to do that very often if at all.


  • Options
    #26
    kingkane
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭kingkane


    sceptre wrote: »
    Runners at close of nominations on Friday 20 March as confirmed by bluedolphin. Elections will take place on Thursday 26 March. I'll edit in details of polling hours and stations when I get them.

    Communications
    Aoife Ni Raghallaigh is currently (as of close of business on Friday) the only confirmed candidate. However, another nomination form was handed in after 5pm from David Dolphin. The Electoral & Referenda will meet to discuss and decide on the issue on Monday.

    Good luck to all candidates!

    I think it would be better in the time honoured "Have I got news for you" tradition to say that in the above case that it is "alleged" that the nomination form was handed in late and that an objection was lodged, ruled on, and then the ruling retracted.


  • Options
    #27
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    kingkane wrote: »
    I think it would be better in the time honoured "Have I got news for you" tradition to say that in the above case that it is "alleged" that the nomination form was handed in late and that an objection was lodged, ruled on, and then the ruling retracted.

    Not wanting to but in, and I'm offering no opinion on the matter as it would not be suitable for me to do so as a campaign manager for another candidates; the nomination was shown by CCTV to have been handed in after 5pm. The setting of 5pm as the deadline is the issue.

    Can we leave this issue alone and maybe Sceptre or Petee could move both of these posts to the Nominations Thread.


  • Options
    #28
    thattequilagirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭thattequilagirl


    I don't see why the matter shouldn't be discussed....?


  • Options
    #29
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    thattequilagirl wrote: »
    I don't see why the matter shouldn't be discussed....?

    I never said that it shouldn't, I just said this is the wrong thread.


  • Options
    #30
    kingkane
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭kingkane


    ninty9er wrote: »
    Not wanting to but in, and I'm offering no opinion on the matter as it would not be suitable for me to do so as a campaign manager for another candidates; the nomination was shown by CCTV to have been handed in after 5pm. The setting of 5pm as the deadline is the issue.

    Can we leave this issue alone and maybe Sceptre or Petee could move both of these posts to the Nominations Thread.

    If 5pm being the deadline is the issue and it turns out it shouldn't be 5pm then the form wouldn't be late and hence my reference to the alleged lateness would be accurate. It's all kind of circular.

    I'm sure a mod will move this if they feel that it should be elsewhere, though this does impact on the campaigns as it leaves things hanging in abeyance for the moment. And it could well impact on the tone and nature of those campaigns should they arise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    ULPaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46 ✭ULPaddy


    kingkane wrote: »
    If 5pm being the deadline is the issue and it turns out it shouldn't be 5pm then the form wouldn't be late and hence my reference to the alleged lateness would be accurate. It's all kind of circular.

    I am also a Campaign Manager for one of the candidates - though not 4 Communications.

    According to the deadline of 5pm it was late and proven (by surveillance camera) as such. Seeing as this is an issue on which the ERB has final ruling I think the extensive discussion on varying interpretation of it being late or not serves only to fuel fueds.

    I agree with Ninety9er in saying "I don't think this is the correct thread for this and the posts should be moved to the nominations thread".


Advertisement