Su Council, non students?

Agent Smith · 23-12-2005 12:39am #1

Was wondering peoples options on this...

Should non student's of Tcd be Allowed in Su council?

I started thinking about This after The editor of TN's "hissy" fit in TN after the editor broke the rules of council, and must have known the rules, having been involved in the union?

I'd like to strongly express that this is neither a swipe at the Editor of Trinity News, nor the Paper itself, but rather an enquirey of peoples views on this.

Crash · 23-12-2005 1:12am

They are allowed, provided council approves them.

Time Magazine · 23-12-2005 2:59am

It should be held in public. Or at the very least, open to the entire College community.

It was a joke and an insult to his SU work that he was kicked out.

wheresthebeef · 23-12-2005 3:43am

SU council is for members of the Students Union only, any other persons must be and should be authorised by council. There is no reason in the world why SU council should be a drop in centre for anyone who wants to walk in off the street.

John · 23-12-2005 3:52am

I agree with Enda, it should be an open event, they represent the student body to the college so people on both sides should be allowed in. Of course priority seating should be given to class reps...

Time Magazine · 23-12-2005 4:09am

wheresthebeef wrote:

SU council is for members of the Students Union only, any other persons must be and should be authorised by council. There is no reason in the world why SU council should be a drop in centre for anyone who wants to walk in off the street.

Sure there is.

Accountability
Respect for former members (as above)
The general creation of a welcoming atmosphere - as opposed to the distinctly cliquey image that prevails of the SU
Not being a cunthole. If somebody wants to go where's the problem? What if I wanted to bring my Mam to show her what student politics is like - should she be voted in?

Now I completely agree that sometimes confidentiality etc. is necessary. Private meetings can be adjourned for this reason. And yes, if there's a problem with capacity (ha!) you should have the ability to turn away non-members. But can you provide me with any strong reason why Andrew, an active member of the college community who volunteers hours and hours for a good cause, is told bluntly to get out because he's not paying €775?

If you sprout off reasons of precedent and rules are rules and what not well I see no defence whatsoever you could offer up to the sort of (mis-guided) insults of being a clique and up your own arses etc. that are unfortunately branded about.

Andrew 83 · 23-12-2005 10:44am

Just to clarify that when you say 'hissy fit' I actually left without complaining. I'm also not any old person off the street, previous work aside, in that I actually have a Trinity student card, I'm just not a capitated student and therefore I'm not a member of the union. As far as college goes, my status is pretty similar to any other student. On the day I was kicked out, I had also been a capitated student less than 46 hours previously. That said, rules are rules so I don't hold anything against those who expelled me.

If I were Education Officer or Chair of Council I would have no problem with non members attending Council. I'd broadly agree with the views of everyone else who's said we should let people in.

I particularly think that as a gesture of good faith there should be an SU policy that the editor of Trinity News is always allowed to Council etc in all years.

Dave_Chair · 23-12-2005 11:38am

Also just to clarify, it was the Electoral Commission who asked Andrew to leave, not the Chair of Council. The constitution states that non members of the SU (i.e. those who have not paid the capitation fee) require the permission of Council to attend and to speak.

I agree that we should be letting as many people as possible into Council. This year the numbers attending Council have risen, which i'm happy with. However, I still think the numbers should be higher, especially given the remit and importance of Council.

This rule was intended to provide a safeguard to Council. For example, last year, during a proposed motion on something USI relalated, USI Education Officer Heledd, came to Council to try and sway the vote. She was given permission to attend but not permission to speak. In fact, I don't think Council has ever actually refused anyone attendance.

The rule is basically a formality. At the start of Council I ask if there is anyone who is not a member of the SU and then I ask Council if they are happy allowing them to stay. But perhaps this is unneccessary.

What do people think? There is a SU Constitutional Review at the moment. Do you think that this rule should be done away with?

Any other suggestions or comments on the constitution or the running of the SU, give me an e-mail at quinnda@tcd.ie and i'll pass it on to the Review Group

Andrew 83 · 23-12-2005 11:44am

Although it was a member of the electoral commission who asked me to leave, I have been informed that it was the education officer and chair of council that drew attention to my presence and the fact that I wasn't a member of the union.

wheresthebeef · 23-12-2005 12:12pm

people are saying that the union is a clique. and it is. its a MEMBERSHIP'ed organisation, created for and by its members. If you have any rational business in council, and your not a member its a simple matter of being voted in. If you don't get voted in, then council doesn't want you. Simple matter.
Andrew, if you have a student card, can you not voluntarily pay the 5 euro (or whatever it is) TCDSU Capitation Fee direct to the union and obtain membership?

Although it was a member of the electoral commission who asked me to leave, I have been informed that it was the education officer and chair of council that drew attention to my presence and the fact that I wasn't a member of the union.

As they are perfectly entitled to do, as members of the union themselves.

Hitchhiker's Guide to... · 23-12-2005 1:02pm

as far as i remember, the stupid thing about the rule is that someone can speak for and against the motion of allowing you to stay or to speak, although you can't personally speak on the motion yourself, as you haven't yet been given permission to speak...

...there should be a common sense application of the rule. for example, if it is the editor of a college newspaper, then the chair could just say 'i presume no-one has a problem with this'.

...regarding David's example of council from last year. given what has happened, it surely (with hindsight) wouldn't have been a bad thing to hear more about the new constitution from as many people as possible before making it such a big issue...sometimes talking is good, and it is surely a strong argument for having as many voices as possible at council

Dave_Chair · 23-12-2005 1:03pm

The Education Officer raised your student status to the E.C. who then informed me that they were going to ask you to leave. It was a E.C. decision. To be honest I hadn't seen you there. In hindsight, the E.C. may have been a little over-zealous, but it was an entirely new commission and their first council.

Perhaps you should have drawn our attention to this before that Council started since I presume you were aware of this rule form your years at council.

I do think that the whole issue was blown a little out of proportion though in TN - 'SU Cronies' and the paper did spin it so that it sounded like you were expelled because you very with TN as opposed to not being a full student. Which was untrue

I did discuss this with you after the event. As far as I was aware the issue had been resolved and you've been present at council since. And we are glad to have you there

!!!!!

And i think the whole 'fissy fit' comment is a bit harsh.

Dave_Chair · 23-12-2005 1:35pm

There has been a common sense application of this rule since the issue was brought to my attention. I now just ask 'is there anyone who is not a members?' and then 'is everybody happy to give them permission?'. It takes 20 seconds and we move on.

The only thing that I would be concerned with if we got rid of this rule, is that is increases the ability to abuse council. Take for example, without the rule, external political parties would have the opportunity to use Council as a platform for pushing their agenda. Esp considering the upcoming General Elections.

But if people think it should be changed?

Roundtower2 wrote:

...
...there should be a common sense application of the rule. for example, if it is the editor of a college newspaper, then the chair could just say 'i presume no-one has a problem with this'.

xeduCat · 23-12-2005 1:47pm

Just for the record there is no "TCDSU fee" that you can pay; I've heard it mentioned on other threads etc but it doesn't actually exist. Also, the money that College pay to the union is not related to either student numbers or rises in the registration fee. Which is a side issue to what's being discussed here, albeit an important and often-left-uncorrected one.

Andrew 83 · 23-12-2005 5:17pm

Yeah it's no big deal, I found it more funny than anything and there's been no problems at future councils. The SU cronies thing was just meant as a bit of a joke and some of the sabbats knew it was going in. The use of 'cronies' was actually edited down from something else.

wheresthebeef · 23-12-2005 5:28pm

xeduCat wrote:

Just for the record there is no "TCDSU fee" that you can pay; I've heard it mentioned on other threads etc but it doesn't actually exist. Also, the money that College pay to the union is not related to either student numbers or rises in the registration fee. Which is a side issue to what's being discussed here, albeit an important and often-left-uncorrected one.

thanks for that piece of information. i was under the impression that the amount capitated to the SU was relative to student numbers, and i am almost sure i heard that from a sabbat or something. Anyway, trust xeduCat to know the truth behind it all.

little miss · 23-12-2005 5:34pm

god, its surprising how quickly power goes to people's heads isn't it?! hmmm... Personally, I think SU council should be far more forthcoming in inviting outsiders in to discuss some issues in order for fair debate to take place. For instance, SIPTU I think came in to address council a few years ago when the library dispute was going on. Also makes sense to me that USI should be invited in to give its view if USI issues are being discussed, or Netsle and Coke if there's another discussion about boycotting the products etc. Students should be given a chance to hear both sides of the story, and not just whatever line the sabbats and exec decide to give them. Then I think council is totally democratic. And what kind of message is it sending to non council member students to ask andrew to leave? It was just petty, childish and stupid... No wonder the good people end up being disallusioned by the whole thing...

wheresthebeef · 23-12-2005 5:43pm

your missing the point little miss.

Exec or the sabbats dont decide you speaks at council. You can call up SIPTU 2moro and ask one of them will they come with you to council, and bring them along, declare them at the start and then council (i.e You and all the other class reps, the convenors, sabbats, officers etc.....) decide democratically if they can stay. Sabbats or Exec members only have one vote like the rest of us. Same applies for coke or nestlé, i'm sure people would love to hear from coke and nestlé officially about their trade practices if there was a debate going on about their products. And it would be up to Council to decide whether they wanted them to or not.

Council is the voice of the students being made up of the class reps. Why are people proposing ways to take power away from council, and allow people to just do whatever they want? How is allowing the Coca Cola promo man coming to council every time he likes better than having the voice of the students decide if they want him there. SU Council is, and should be the most powerful body within the SU. If we can't trust council to make a decision who can we trust. Its a bottom down hierarchy folks, Council are at the top, Sabbats at the bottom. They work for US!

cuckoo · 23-12-2005 8:14pm

Ah, yes. The wonders of this year's Council - which i'm unlikely to be going back to again. I missed the drama of andrew being asked to leave the first council - can someone clear up one thing for me, was a vote proposed that he be allowed to stay or did the council stay silent as he left?

I did make it to the second council as i was interested in the debate about the motions for USI special congress, yup, i was the one who got up to speak and managed to annoy most of the council. i was also the one who was shouted at from the floor, when an excitable young man jumped up (in an almost exact repitition of his behaviour at last March's USI annual congress when he was awarded the 'angry young delegate' award) "she's not a member! we haven't voted for her to have speaking rights! throw her out! witch! witch!"

yeah, ok, i'm making up the last bit about accusations of magical powers, but it did feel a little Salem.

look, i know a lot of this year's council are newbies and that's the nature of the constant changing nature of the SU (which Coll tries to take advantage of at every opportunity), but i'm disgusted that andrew, who has been involved heavily in the union, was asked to leave while it's acceptable for people to shout abuse from the floor.

before we start debating the merits of allowing non-members to attend council, maybe its members should look to their own behaviour so that were it to be a free for all to attend event it wouldn't be an embarassment to the students of trinity.

Time Magazine · 24-12-2005 2:53am

Angry Banana, in full expectation of political-reality wrote:

If you sprout off reasons of precedent and "rules are rules" and what not well I see no defence whatsoever you could offer up to the sort of (mis-guided) insults of being a clique and up your own arses etc. that are unfortunately branded about.

wheresthebeef wrote:

You can call up SIPTU 2moro and ask one of them will they come with you to council, and bring them along, declare them at the start and then council

Rules are rules, isn't that right? Even when the greater good is at stake; rules are rules. You also mention, implicitly, the Coke and Nestlé ban. In Ireland, we live under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty; these companies have never been convicted of anything. Their actions are perfectly legal; or should I say rule-abiding. In Ireland, we also live under Bunreacht na hÉireann, which Article 40.6 presents unto us freedom of association. As mentioned previously; the SU seem to over-ride our constitution (not for the first time, law students will know) and impose membership on all students. Is this rule-abiding? Or is this the common good?

people are saying that the union is a clique. and it is.

Right.

If you have any rational business in council, and your not a member its a simple matter of being voted in. If you don't get voted in, then council doesn't want you. Simple matter.

You fail to realise that what might be in the best interest of council is not necessarily in the best interest of the student body; such as allowing the editor of an independent student newspaper into an open SU council.

Andrew, if you have a student card, can you not voluntarily pay the 5 euro (or whatever it is) TCDSU Capitation Fee direct to the union and obtain membership?

So you're willing to allow someone to buy membership of the SU (which does not exist) and then allow them to enter Council? Go commercial interests! Do you not see the glaring problems with this?

Why are people proposing ways to take power away from council

Perhaps it's because they admit to being a clique, who do not allow editors of "opposition" newspapers in on pedantic rules. Or maybe it's the ethical hypocracy of insisting of rules superseding moral absolutes and then imposing moral absolutes over pedantic rules? Or perhaps it's the fact that far too many people in the SU are too concerned with these rules to notice the above?

If we can't trust council to make a decision who can we trust.

People who buy their way into Council, seemingly. And with all due respect to Crash_000 and his Wands and Sceptres; do you trust the supreme representatives of Council on the College Board to represent our views? With over 100 places on Council not officially mandated? Really?

little miss · 24-12-2005 5:03pm

wheresthe beef - I am not missing the point. As someone who has attended council for a number of years, I know how easy it is for sabbats to lead council at times, especially when it comes to allowing external speakers permission to speak. Yes, the vote might be democratic but its not always fair. Not sure what this year's council is like, but i've seen plenty of votes swayed by sabbats and exec in the past to the detriment of class reps being able to make up their own minds...

DrIndy · 24-12-2005 5:18pm

That incident was one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard. The decision to chuck someone out was not only anal, but bizarre and it is the arguments on procedure and constitutions that are the reason why the SU is ineffective.

I cut the crap when in the SU and its the only way to get stuff done.

Cantab. · 24-12-2005 5:39pm

DrIndy wrote:

That incident was one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard. The decision to chuck someone out was not only anal, but bizarre and it is the arguments on procedure and constitutions that are the reason why the SU is ineffective.

I cut the crap when in the SU and its the only way to get stuff done.

I'd agree with AngryBanana on the matter (who put things very well indeed in his last post). It's not like it's difficult to get on to some wishy-washy diploma course if being involved in whatever extra-cirricular student activity is so important to you. College is not an open resource, although you'd sometimes wonder given the number of non-students involved in College sports clubs, societies, publications and the GSU/SU.

Stargal · 05-01-2006 4:25pm

I think Andrew should have been allowed to stay because he's a hottie, and we need more eye candy at Council

Crash · 05-01-2006 4:34pm

I have a feeling this years council will be quite easy to sway. one of the downsides of having a load of new non-hackish people IMO.

one of the VERY FEW downsides albeit.

Ron DMC · 05-01-2006 4:38pm

stargal wrote:

and we need more eye candy at Council

ahem, I haven't missed a council ever.

Crash · 05-01-2006 4:44pm

Ditto. i mean, you think people clapped and cheered for me that time cus of the wands and sceptres thing? nah, it was just they saw how sexy my ass was.

Also ronny you in college?

Pet · 05-01-2006 6:57pm

stargal wrote:

I think Andrew should have been allowed to stay because he's a hottie, and we need more eye candy at Council

She loves it.

cuckoo · 05-01-2006 8:19pm

stargal wrote:

I think Andrew should have been allowed to stay because he's a hottie, and we need more eye candy at Council

Yup, send him down to the Hamilton and we won't need hot plates in the labs - he's so smouldering temps in test tubes (and in white coats) will rise due to his mere, tom cruise looky likey proximity.

Hmm, Starla, if you two were to get married and have babies - would you have to give birth silently? I mean, how far does Andrew take after Mr Cruise?

/back on thread topic:

So, does andrew (and anyone else) have to get permission for each individual council, or is there a year long pass that can be voted in for them by council?

Stargal · 05-01-2006 8:44pm

cuckoo wrote:

Yup, send him down to the Hamilton and we won't need hot plates in the labs - he's so smouldering temps in test tubes (and in white coats) will rise due to his mere, tom cruise looky likey proximity.

Hmm, Stargal, if you two were to get married and have babies - would you have to give birth silently? I mean, how far does Andrew take after Mr Cruise?

ROFLMAO

Oh God that's hilarious!

And to answer your serious question, yes, if the rules are going to be adhered by, any guest has to ask permission to attend and to speak before every single Council.

05-01-2006 9:09pm

cuckoo wrote:

Hmm, Starla, if you two were to get married and have babies - would you have to give birth silently? I mean, how far does Andrew take after Mr Cruise?

Ehhh...

Nietzschean · 05-01-2006 9:21pm

Cuckoo wrote:

Hmm, Starla, if you two were to get married and have babies - would you have to give birth silently? I mean, how far does Andrew take after Mr Cruise?

stargal wrote:

And to answer your serious question, yes,

Stings for you...

Stargal · 05-01-2006 9:57pm

Nice:)

And just to clarify - any kid I'm bringing into this world will be greeted by a woman who has been epiduraled (?) to within an inch of her life.

Pet · 05-01-2006 10:36pm

That's the stuff. And you can pretend it doesn't work to get some nitrous oxide too! Wheee! That stuff rocks. It's sexy, love it.

Agent Smith · 06-01-2006 12:20am

i have no idea whats going on whatsoever......

Dr indy:"push stargal push!"
Stargal:"AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Su Council, non students?

Comments