LawSoc Auditor for next year?

TheVan

Right, I just came out of the LawSoc EGM about the constitutional changes....

Just wondering what people out there think of the whole situation?

And if you don't know what I'm talking about you've missed out on some of the best entertainment in UCD this year!

My opinion is that

1. He was stupid not to join
2. In a perfect world he shouldnt have to pay for that in such an extreme situation
3. The constitution is there for a reason
4. He broke the rules
5. The ammendment he brought was legally bo*llocks
6. Its a mess started by and lengthened by Mulrooney

He should bring a proper ammendment and then let democracy run its course instead of putting forward legal rubbish.....

But thats my opinion....whats the consensus among Boardsies?

Font22

idiot not to join. why the hell wud he try to round up members for the law soc if he wasnt even arsed to join himself??

Riamfada

Whats this then?

panda100

I think he should definatly be alllowed run.Most of the societys I am active in now I didnt join at the begginig of the year.I didnt join world aid soc or labouryouth cos I wasnt out on campus at the beggining of term.At the end of the day joining law soc just gives you a membership number and a free donought.You shouldnt be allowed run just cos you didnt pay 2 euro at the begginig of the year-its not fair.Mulrooney lived beneath me in belgrove two years ago and he seems decent enough.But the fact is he should be allowed run,definatly

TheVan

I think the feeling in the LawSoc is that everyone would love if he could run.

Thing is there are two problems.

Firstly he didnt fulfill the rules by failing to join up. Now we can say that a blind eye should be turned but a similar situation arose 2 years ago and the person was not allowed run.

Secondly this opens the possibility of changing the rules. The egm was to consider his proposed ammendment. It is perhaps the messiest legal ammendment i have ever seen (in my opinion...im sure some other people think differently, pidgeonbutler i am looking at you!) and so it failed.

I think the general feeling is that if a watertight, good ammendment is proposed people will allow it and he can run....but he persists in making it difficult for himself and everyone else!

A good guy but really.....

Also any B&L or law students missed a legally fascinating meeting!

Sangre

Would have maybe went except I haven't been a lawsoc member in 2 years.

Just let him run I say. Let the members choose their best auditor.
He is a member, so what if he only joined in refreshers week?

Anybody but Barry I say.

randombassist

I think with the particular ammedment he put in, he really shouldn't be allowed to run. A reference to semesters when the rest of the constitution deals in terms just doesn't make any sense at all!

Panda, I can see where you're coming from, but in Richard's particular case, he should have learnt from his last experience at this sort of thing when he resigned from the law society rather than the commitee, it really is his own fault.

panda100

TheVan wrote:

Also any B&L or law students missed a legally fascinating meeting!

I think law and order on network 2 is about all the law jargon i can handle!
I hate all these rules and regulations in societys,there so silly.
Thank god for world aid soc and its flexible rules!do we even have a constitution beanyb?:D

Ah that is really bad form he's not being allowed run.the poor chap.He seems to have given a lot to law over the years and really at the end of the day joining the society really is just a membership card and free ice cream.

beanyb

Yeah we do have a constitution. I think Ciaran wrote one before he stepped down as auditor. I have a vague memory of voting on it anyway. Half of our exec never joined though, i know that's for sure.

But I'm sure as such a small soc and a relatively new one ours is totally different to Lawsoc's proper constitution. It's an unfortunate situation, but if it's in the constitution he cant run.

Have to agree with Sangre though... anybody but Barry. Never heard anything nice said about the guy.

Sangre

You have to have a constitution to become a society.
You probably voted to change the standard format one most use.

TheVan

Thing is, he was told publicly that if he comes back with another amendment that actually makes sense and isnt completely worthless, it will be passed and he can run. He could propose "all committee members are to be considered de facto members of the Law Society".
In fact several people suggested this to him in the last few weeks but he obviously refused to listen? Tis madness i tells ya!

I dont think we should make it a personal thing, fair enough not liking Barry but to be honest if we're gonna judge potential auditors i think Mulrooney would be a disaster, he has no organisational skills and at the last few public meetings he has shown he actually knows very little about how the LawSoc is run.
He's a really nice guy who has a lot to give the society but thats it.

The legal discussion was great tho. Steven Byrne and Seán Quigley made great, clear arguments!

GusherING

I resented the disadin many Law Soc committe memebers held against those of us who don't attend every Law Soc meeting. I felt like I was portrayed as being hired my Richard Mulrooney to back his case. I back his case but thats my prerogative as a member for the last two years, I am not rent-a-crowd. I think Law Soc should learn to repsect its members better in every sense, be it constitutional pedantry or just common courtesy to people in their society that they don't know to see. My opinion is far lower of this society and I wonder will I re-join next year.:mad:

hullaballoo

tintinr35

panda100 wrote:

.Mulrooney lived beneath me in belgrove two years ago and he seems decent enough.But the fact is he should be allowed run,definatly

just cause he lived beneath u in 1st yr doesnt mean he should be allowed run!
most private clubs/societies have rules and regulations!

if u do not abide by them then you cannot participate in them, i red all the leaflets he left around res over the past few nights and despite the fact that he has done alot for the society in the past, he was not a member for the college year and therefore should not be allowed to run! if he was so active in the society in the past he should have made it his business to join in september, dont tell me he wasnt intending running then!!!
take your degree and p1ss off mate tbh.

panda100

So can I not be active in world aid soc because I didnt pay 1euro to join at the beggining of the year??

tintinr35

panda100 wrote:

So can I not be active in world aid soc because I didnt pay 1euro to join at the beggining of the year??

well as u have mentioned several times already u clearly are, maybe the rules are different panda

besty

"Scandal"

panda100

tintinr35 wrote:

well as u have mentioned several times already u clearly are, maybe the rules are different panda

Its just a ridiculous rule though.This will just discourage people from getting involved in societys with petty rules such as that.If he's involved in the commitee and active in the society then he should be allowed run,definatly!!

The_Minister

The rule is there to stop people waltzing in and taking over. The rules must count.
Did he know the rule - yes.

Sangre

Firespinner wrote:

The rule is there to stop people waltzing in and taking over. The rules must count.
Did he know the rule - yes.

Don't be stupid. A majority of the 3000+ members would still have to vote him in.

Just get him to come back with a different amendment. Didn't realise his first one was so atrocious. And after being told to change it by Byrne before hand...tut tut

singingstranger

seemingly it wouldn't work anyway because (I'm told by my murky hack sources) it wouldn't have worked retrospectively and could only work in the future, not the present. Or something.

There's the reason I'm not doing Law...

Blush_01

To be honest, the guy shouldn't be running for Auditor of one of the largest societies in UCD if he didn't even have the decency to fork over €2 in September. Being Auditor isn't something that just strikes you on the bog over christmas, you're either committed or not. He obviously wasn't committed enough, otherwise he'd have done his research and joined in the first semester, be it during Fresher's week or on the last day of term. So Panda, I think your argument that you shouldn't have to join a society to be active is fine, but to run the bloody society it's not. If he wanted to be an OCM, fine, but he wants to manage the entire society. It's hard enough to juggle a small society and college, who the hell is he to be allowed to take a year off to run a society if he can't even get his ass into gear to join it within three months of college starting? If any of my committee hadn't joined in Fresher's week, there'd have been words. And there's only 6 of us. It takes two seconds to join up - he thought he'd get all the perks for nothing and his scabbiness shouldn't be rewarded by him being made auditor, especially as he could have bummed the €2 from any number of people. I don't even know the guy and I'd have given it to him if he'd asked. He might be a nice guy, but he's also a bit of a twit if his inability to join the relevant society he plans on running is anything to go by.

Syth

Small societies really need the protections of a committee. Otherwise on the AGM a guy walks in with 10 of his mates and he can win the election. Some societies (NetSoc and PaganSoc at least) require you to be a committee member the previous year before you can run for auditor.

hullaballoo

Purely incidentally: Would anyone like to be the auditor of Comedy Soc next year? Just asking, pm me if interested.

besty

hullaballoo wrote:

Purely incidentally: Would anyone like to be the auditor of Comedy Soc next year? Just asking, pm me if interested.

You do it Hullaballoo. My organisational skills wouldn't be up to it.

TheVan

Yeah 'Loo, I would vote for you!

What a rhyme!

Auditor of ComedySoc 2006/07.....Hullaballoo!

Economaniac!

Does anybody know the List for the election of Auditor for Lawsoc? I think an informal poll is in order. As far as i know the list is Richard Mulrooney*, Barry Hickey and Sean Tracey. A poll anybody? (we have polls over the most stupid things in this board i think this at least deserves one)

*pending scandal.

TheVan

Economaniac! wrote:

A poll anybody? (we have polls over the most stupid things in this board i think this at least deserves one)

*pending scandal.

It has been done!

panda100

hullaballoo wrote:

Purely incidentally: Would anyone like to be the auditor of Comedy Soc next year? Just asking, pm me if interested.

cool!!yeah I love comedy!dont tell anyone but neil delemare is doing a private intimate gig in Bewleys cafe theatre on tuesday night-cant wait!!

Do I have to do some sort of comedy routine for my interview......
why did the chicken cross the road?

Economaniac!

its BARRY hickey, i'm not him (but i know all three of them) and he should probably have his name spelt right!

TheVan

I know, sorry....was in an extremely tired place when I wrote it!

Anyway from the sounds of it he hasnt much support out there!

ITS BARRY HICKEY!.....SORRY

Anyway i dont think this poll matters too much in the grand scheme though...some people have children you know!

hullaballoo

TheVan wrote:

Yeah 'Loo, I would vote for you!

What a rhyme!

Auditor of ComedySoc 2006/07.....Hullaballoo!

Not likely, I don't even have the time to do the stuff that needs doing this year! Nah, to do it properly you'd have to not be doing finals and to have loads of spare time.

The_Minister

Sangre wrote:

Don't be stupid. A majority of the 3000+ members would still have to vote him in.

Ouch. What I mean is that all it would take (this would be harder in a big society but not impossible) would be one very carismatic person to waft in and run. Lets face it most Law soc people don't know who is who they'll vote on a whim. The existing rules prevent this. Its not likely but it is concievable and so must be measured.

panda100

hullaballoo wrote:

Not likely, I don't even have the time to do the stuff that needs doing this year! Nah, to do it properly you'd have to not be doing finals and to have loads of spare time.

Well you've come to the right place,boards!:)

Zephead

this is the updated one. now that Mulrooney is aloowed to run and the election is now only a week away.

AngelofFire

g`wan richie

MaxBax

Go Barry Go (congrats to barry if he's reading)

Blush_01

*Bump*

Maybe Peachy could link this one to the new one set up by Zephead?

As for the Mulrooney thing... He arrived late last tuesday to the EGM. I was late, he arrived after me. That's not the most amazing level of commitment, is it? His excuse? An essay. We all do essays/projects/assignments. That's not an excuse, it's B.S. The amendment was passed. Unfortunately, it is retrospective, not retroactive, so he can run. It's a good idea for the committee members to be recognised as society members, but that doesn't eliminate the need for them to actually sign up at some stage throughout the year!

Now I'm sure Richard's probably a great guy with many, many fine qualities. But perhaps he'd be better off running for LawSoc Ents or Publicity officer, or whatever the equivalent is. Personally from the few times I've ever spoken to him or seen him speak (let's try to forget that comedy debate in first year... ouch!) he doesn't appear to have the diplomacy or leadership qualities necessary in the Auditor of such a big society. You can get away with being a crap auditor if your society is small - it's not advisable, but the team as a whole can carry it's weakest members faults if they're made up for by otehr types of action. In something like LawSoc, a pretty major society with a reputation to uphold and a large budget to manage each year, it's not as easy. The people involved in the committee have to carry out their specific duties. It's imperitive that they work well together as a team, but also that they can carry out their required elements of society work themselves. I simply think that there are better candidates for the Auditorship than Richard.

Chinafoot

Relevant posts from new thread merged with this thread. Subject edited.

Diorraing

Richard Mulrooney without question. While I think all 3 candidates would make fine auditors I think Mulrooney's ideas will vastly imrove the society. Lets face it, at the moment the Law Soc is just a crappier version of the L&H with a few ents nights and a few special guests. Mulrooney wants more emphasis placed on the Law side of things: More Moot courts (and not just law students to be involved), sending teams to the international Moot Court competitions and establishing links with the Law Socs in other universities. His ents also sound class and he intends to keep up Thuillier's good work on the debating front.
Don't know much about what the other candidates intend to do, but I'd imagine the society would continue to be a lesser L&H under their guidance

elmyra

I think it's not such a good idea to say that you think Mulrooney would be the best auditor if you don't know what the other two candidates intent to do in the position, grab a manifesto! I'm sure he is a great guy but having been to both EGM's I'm of the opinion that support is split, with friends from Law on Mulrooney's side and LawSoc members who are debaters or members who aren't in the Law faculty siding with Tracey or Hickey. While I respect that LawSoc is chiefly a concern of Law students, I believe both of the other candidates recognise this and there has always been a Law faculty rep on the LawSoc committee, there is no inherent need for LawSoc's auditor to be a Law student.
It's not really fair to say that LawSoc is currently just a less good version of the L&H, LawSoc had a greater membership than the L&H this year, the largest in UCD as far as I'm aware, their teams do very well at debating intervarsities and they've had great guests.
While I wouldn't worry about Law being taken care of under an auditor from Arts (as Tracey and Hickey are), I would worry about debate etc. being taken care of under an auditor from Law, and the fact is debate and events and all that jazz is what LawSoc is very involved with, and it's what gets it the massive membership, and it's that massive membership that dictates the value of the grant the society receives from UCD, allowing LawSoc to run all the events it does. Therefor, if LawSoc becomes a society that becomes more restricted within its mother faculty, which I would worry that it would under Mulrooney, I wouldn't be surprised if membership dropped and took a chunk of that grant along with it. I do know that Thuillier's predecessor, Caroline O'Gorman, is a Law student, but that was probably different in that she was involved in debate and had the support of debaters who were more than willing to serve on her committee and keep a more rounded society. Since Mulrooney doesn't exactly seem to have the debater vote, I don't see that happening under him, he does seem like a nice guy (he seconded Barry Hickey's nomination for auditor) but he's not a speaker...and while I've only seen him speak twice, that sentiment has already been expressed in this thread so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks it. At one of the EGM's he attempted to make a point of information and had to be told that you weren't allowed to make a point of information at an EGM (something written in the LawSoc constitution, ironically), and while it's fair enough to say that people and members in general might not know this, I didn't, an auditorial candidate really ought to.
On a sentimental note, I just don't think LawSoc would be the same without an auditor who maintains involvement in debate, and I think that irrespective of whether Richard wants to do this as he says, it would be difficult for him. College debates happen because student speakers, chiefly those who are on committees, are willing to get up and speak and because debate convenors who know how a house debate or a comedy debate etc works, but time into organising it. Richard's committee, were he to be elected, would most likely be made up of friends from Law who aren't necessarily speakers, and those people who are speakers are siding with Tracey and Hickey, so even if he wants to keep up debating, I fail to see who's going to speak.
I support the amendment that was made to the constitution, but I voted against it because I knew that it was to work retrospectively and I felt it was a bad thing that Richard be allowed to run this year- I know he made a genuine mistake in not joining- but unfortunately that's given him some limelight which the other candidates didn't have, and as they say all publicity is good publicity. He'll also probably get the sympathy vote from people who aren't involved in the society but are members, and think he has been somehow wronged by LawSoc, and finally, it's prevented people who didn't agree with the first amendment or indeed any amendment at all from getting behind him as a candidate and has seriously restricted the pool he has to choose any potential committee from. I support Richard's amendment, but not his running for auditor this year, it's unfortunate but given everything that's happened people wont be voting on manifestos and whether or not Mulrooney is the best candidate, but on whether on not they feel Mulrooney was wronged by LawSoc.

Zephead

Sean Tracey all the way. Richards ideas are too focused on Roebuck. At least with Sean you have a huge focus on the law school while at the same time continuing the success in all other aspects of the society. Plus Sean is a real debater, so he'll be able to contine the good work john has done properly.

And no, he won't just continue the society as an L&H mark 2. Anyone who knows Sean, or has talked to him about the election knows he wants to move away from being the L7H's bitch.

Blush_01

Sean's always been a concise and driven person in the time I've known him. I doubt he'd stand for playing second fiddle to the L&H.

Diorraing

elmyra wrote:

I support the amendment that was made to the constitution, but I voted against it because I knew that it was to work retrospectively and I felt it was a bad thing that Richard be allowed to run this year.

Oh, so you would hand pic who is to run and were they not in the "debaters" clique you wouldn't let them run. Nonsense. Its up to the members of the society who auditor should be and it is in the best interests of the society that there be more candidates to choose from.

It's prevented people who didn't agree with the first amendment or indeed any amendment at all from getting behind him as a candidate and has seriously restricted the pool he has to choose any potential committee from

Not true. Just because they didn't back him as a candidate doesn't mean he won't have them on his commitee.

Since Mulrooney doesn't exactly seem to have the debater vote, I don't see that happening under him, he does seem like a nice guy (he seconded Barry Hickey's nomination for auditor) but he's not a speaker...and while I've only seen him speak twice, that sentiment has already been expressed in this thread so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks it

So what do you mean? If you're not a great public speaker you shouldn't be allowed run for auditor. What if you've got a genuine interest in Law (Moot Courts and all that) but aren't a good debater. I go to many Law Soc debates but can't speak publicly. I still know how debates work and in fairness the auditor doesn't really have to do much - debates conveners etc. do most of the work. I don't like the message being sent out here that you have to be a good debater to do well in Law Soc. It restricts the number of people who are active in the society

Diorraing

Blush_01 wrote:

Sean's always been a concise and driven person in the time I've known him. I doubt he'd stand for playing second fiddle to the L&H.

Hopefully. I have a lot of time for Sean Tracey and think he'd make a fine auditor aswell. I just think that Richie's ideas are more "Law-based", I'm not against Arts students and if they were as focused on the legal side of things as Richie I'd support them. I thought Caroline would place more emphasis on Law last year but was disappointed.
Whoever the hell gets it this year I hope they will do more for people with an interest in Law (like they're supposed to)

Blush_01

Supposed to? Surely an ability to speak is pretty important in legal work? Regardless of what you're dealing with, you're going to have to put your case across succinctly. If you don't you lose the interest of your audience - be that in a debate, in a court case, in a lecture address, in an argument, in a meeting with clients... you see where I'm going, right? Besides, your comment about the Auditor not doing much - if that was the case, why does it necessitate a year out? I get the feeling that you don't really know what's involved in the inner workings of a society, and I doubt that's true.

Did you know that the majority of people doing my course go into Law afterwards? And a fair portion of law students go into journalism etcetera - something people would expect more of Arts students. So an interest in law is reserved solely for those studying the subject? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

elmyra

Diorraing wrote:

Oh, so you would hand pic who is to run and were they not in the "debaters" clique you wouldn't let them run. Nonsense. Its up to the members of the society who auditor should be and it is in the best interests of the society that there be more candidates to choose from.

Not true. Just because they didn't back him as a candidate doesn't mean he won't have them on his commitee.


So what do you mean? If you're not a great public speaker you shouldn't be allowed run for auditor. What if you've got a genuine interest in Law (Moot Courts and all that) but aren't a good debater. I go to many Law Soc debates but can't speak publicly. I still know how debates work and in fairness the auditor doesn't really have to do much - debates conveners etc. do most of the work. I don't like the message being sent out here that you have to be a good debater to do well in Law Soc. It restricts the number of people who are active in the society

I wholeheartedly agree that the bigger the pool of candidates, the better for the society- the only reason I voted against was because the amendment worked retrospectively, I just thought it was unfair that he'd got so much publicity, intentional or not, that the other candidates didn't have. It was a good amendment.

I'm not saying Richard wouldn't have them on his committee, I'm saying chances are it wont happen because if they didn't support him as a candidate they probably don't want to be on his committee. Sad fact.

Finally, of course you don't have to be a good debater to be a good auditor- LawSoc isn't just about debate, I know that, but usually if the auditor isn't an especially involved debater, members of the committee are and this keeps things even. If the entire committee are non-debaters, the society may sadly lose something that is a huge element of what it does and what it's about.

Diorraing

elmyra wrote:

Finally, of course you don't have to be a good debater to be a good auditor- LawSoc isn't just about debate, I know that, but usually if the auditor isn't an especially involved debater, members of the committee are and this keeps things even. If the entire committee are non-debaters, the society may sadly lose something that is a huge element of what it does and what it's about.

But you are assuming that his committee will be full of non-debaters. I don't think that will be the case. I was at the first EGM and the woman (mary I think) said that she really respected Richie and everyone was full of praise for him (debaters included). I do also think that Richie is quite an involved debater: I saw him speak at 4 of the 6 debates I went to. Even if he didn't speak at them it is enough that he attended them (it shows he has the interest). He has one of those red hoodies so I presume he helped out at the world debating championships aswell. OK, he may not be a spectacular debater but he has an interest and no-one can deny that.

I'm not saying Richard wouldn't have them on his committee, I'm saying chances are it wont happen because if they didn't support him as a candidate they probably don't want to be on his commitee. Sad fact.

You can hardly blame Richie if other people are too petty to be on his commitee. Personally I don't think they'll hold it against him and if they do decline to be on the commitee because of what the majority of members wanted then they shouldn't be in the society. But, again, I doubt that they will decline to be on the commitee if they are loyal to the society

I wholeheartedly agree that the bigger the pool of candidates, the better for the society- the only reason I voted against was because the amendment worked retrospectively, I just thought it was unfair that he'd got so much publicity, intentional or not, that the other candidates didn't have. It was a good amendment.

I assume we are talking about the second amendment as the first one was complete sh*te. It was a good amendment and I think the reasons you opposed it are insubstantial. OK, Richie may have got more support from it but its not his fault. The other option was far worse: Not letting him run. Isn't Law Soc's motto: Ar son na córa or something like that which means for the sake of justice. It would be completely unjust for someone who has done as much for the commitee as Richie has not to be allowed run

planck2

if the guy hasn't spoken at any debates or met any of the criteria that is usually required to be met by a person running for auditor then he/she should not be let run.

Economaniac!

Sean for president. He's adorable.

Chakar

The fact of the matter is that Richard Mulrooney has the support of a lot of people such as the numerous Law Soc members and the support of the Students Union Class Reps in which theres out of 81, 50 would actively support Mulrooney as an auditor. The publicity in the College Tribune and the University Observer has done nothing but raise the profile of Mulrooney in UCD and with the extra publicity and name and face recognition I predict Richard Mulrooney will be the Auditor of The Law Society of University College Dublin.