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
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.
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
€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
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.
Are you saying a UCC staff member knowingly misappropiated student money on personal taxis?
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
Claims what is so? That the guild has an account in that shop? We're just playing my word against yours here
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
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.
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
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.
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?