Is it EVER okay?

Vainglory

There's a bit of a kick-up going on in the SU at the moment, and while I won't go into all the details until after the Independent Appeals Board meet tomorrow, this is the basics of it. I'd be really interested as to your opinions, if you have two minutes to give them.

Do you think that in any case, the College should have the authority to overrule SU decisions made by SU Council, or decisions made by Referendum?

Do you think that the Students' Union should always be controlled by its members and the structures that are in place by the Constitution, or do you think the College should be able to veto decisions made by the Union membership if they think it is appropriate?

Although I won't go into the details yet, you can take it that what the Union wants to do is not illegal (and is nothing to do with abortion, if that's what some people are wondering.)

If your answer to the first question is "yes", then what purpose do you think votes by Union members serve if they can always be overruled by the College?

Like I said, I would be genuinely interested in some (sorry to use the word) "non-hack" views.

Red Alert

Ok, we need to get a few definitions straight here first:

i'm going on the assumption that the College means Brady, Nolan etc., that a Decision made is something that directly affects the SU's function. (So we can decide to make the bar non-alco or not sell coke, but we can't make Theatre L the Jane Horgan Jones Theatre).

Before we get into this who are on the IAB? Is it a college or an SU body - does it exist outside of the SU?

Q1: My gut feeling is that the SU's membership ONLY (be it Sabbats, Council, Members) are those who set its policy and direction.
Q2: College cannot veto membership decisions since they are not SU members. Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Jane can you tell us after this IAB meeting what the deal is?

tintinr35

i believe that the college should not be able to over rule decisions made by the SU, you are our representatives and i would imagine are acting in our best interests,
im trying to think of an example of this happening in the irish Govt but my brain is fried....too many exams not enough sleep

but no i believe it is wrong for the college to do so!!

Red Alert

Well there's been a certain kowtowing by Siptu in particular to the current government, which some grass-roots membership are not very happy bunnies about.

hullaballoo

It would be equivalent to the executive trying to overrule the rest of the government. Sort of.

Vainglory

Red Alert wrote:

Ok, we need to get a few definitions straight here first:

i'm going on the assumption that the College means Brady, Nolan etc., that a Decision made is something that directly affects the SU's function. (So we can decide to make the bar non-alco or not sell coke, but we can't make Theatre L the Jane Horgan Jones Theatre).

Before we get into this who are on the IAB? Is it a college or an SU body - does it exist outside of the SU?

Q1: My gut feeling is that the SU's membership ONLY (be it Sabbats, Council, Members) are those who set its policy and direction.
Q2: College cannot veto membership decisions since they are not SU members. Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

Jane can you tell us after this IAB meeting what the deal is?

The IAB is the judicial body of the Students' Union. It is, according to the UCDSU constitution, the is the “final tribunal of appeal within the Union” .

Although I like the Jane Horgan-Jones Theatre idea, it isn't something like that

Basically, Council passed a motion which mandated the President to do something that the College don't want him to do. The question facing the IAB is whether the College should have an influence over the affairs of the Union, even if constitutionally the President has to follow the wishes of the membership and if the College's intervention was successful, then the wishes of the membership would not be carried out.

Yes, I'll probably write a long article on the whole affair once it's over.

Red Alert

Not particularly though, wouldn't what you're saying be more like the Sabbats deciding to force a change in union policy.

The problem is that the SU has its functioning and physical being in a sense at the pleasure of the college. So the college may de-facto have the ability to control or influence the SU.

humbert

I think the college should have the right to overrule the unions decisions in extreme or important cases. I think the union should represent the views of the students(though often doesn't) but ultimately the college chooses to acknowledge the union but that is all. Not knowing what this is in reference to means that I cannot comment on this instance. If the college is deemed to have acted unfairly then the union is there to protest with and on the behalf of students, realistically that is all it can do. I think sometimes members of the union think it is more powerful/important than it actually is.
Basically I think if it's purely a union matter then it should be up to the union but otherwise I think the final say should be left to the college, mainly because while I've no doubt there are many greedy people in the governing of the college I have more faith in their leadership than I have in the student union.

My mistake.

Vainglory

I said it wasn't illegal. It's also not anything to do with Coke, the war, etc. etc. It could accurately be described as an issue directly affecting UCD students.

AngelofFire

It would be equivalent to the executive trying to overrule the rest of the government. Sort of.

or the government of ireland being able to overrule a the result of a referendum. Policy passed by the union always has always been passed by bodies with a direct and legitimate connection to students. Ie a referendum by the student body, by council-elected by the student body or by executive-elected by student body. wheres the college is run in a top down nature. Its always important to remember that that college do not always act for the benefit of the students, increase in post grad fees, 1.6 milllion spent on the presidents house which could have been spent on books or more computer spaces. underfunding for arts and human sciences subjects.

The_Minister

It depends on what and why the college are overrling. If the new student centre is to be built somewhere and the college wants to put NCAD there then they can overrule.

Vainglory

They'd be overruling a mandate from SU Council directing the President to act a certain way (which is not illegal).

It's also worth noting that this whole thing is only being decided upon by the IAB because the President of the SU refused to follow the vote from Council.

The_Minister

Vainglory wrote:

They'd be overruling a mandate from SU Council directing the President to act a certain way (which is not illegal).

Could you post a link to the motion? Or at least say which council meeting it was passed in.

humbert

Refused because the college told him not to?

hullaballoo

Something that the college will not allow will probably be considered ultra vires the Students' Union. I would imagine Pierce (sp?) Farrell would be able to tell you, but there will either be (a) an express provision in the constitution that disallows the SU to do anything that the college authority won't allow, or (b) an implied provision of the same.

Red Alert

SO basically,

1 - Council mandates something that college don't like.
2 - President refuses to accept the mandate.
3 - IAB get involved
?

Vainglory

humbert wrote:

Refused because the college told him not to?

Refused because he didnt think it would be in the "best interests of the union", even though Council had explicitly voted otherwise.

Chain of events was..

Council voted in favour of motion
President refused to follow mandate
I appealed President's decision to the IAB (any SU member can appeal any Union decision to the IAB)
College made a submission to the IAB asking them to overrule the mandate.

hullaballoo

Well, surely that's ok. It was just a request, not an order. I still stand by my initial assertion about the contents of the constitution.

The_Minister

Is this the new president or the old one?
Can you just tell us the particulers so we can make an informed choice.

Vainglory

hullaballoo wrote:

Well, surely that's ok. It was just a request, not an order. I still stand by my initial assertion about the contents of the constitution.

Yep, but if the IAB allow the College to influence their decision, then I think that's just as bad.

Firespinner wrote:

Is this the new president or the old one?
Can you just tell us the particulers so we can make an informed choice.

Erm..Current president. This is the motion in question.

Motion on notice
Council notes the recent discussion on UCD’s Governing Authority regarding access to the minutes of the Finance Committee.

Council further notes that although the Finance Committee is a sub-committee of the Governing Authority, governors are denied full and open access to these minutes.

Council notes with concern that this is irregular when compared to the practices of other universities regarding access to Finance Committee minutes.

Council observes that the SU President James Carroll is a member of the Finance Committee and as such is in a position to furnish other members of the Governing Authority with these minutes.

Council notes existing UCDSU mandate that SU representatives on university committees shall make available all decisions made by these committees which are relevant to students.

Council therefore mandates the SU president to provide the other student representatives on Governing Authority with copies of all minutes of the Finance Committee which are available to him.

Proposed by Jane Horgan-Jones, Education Vice-President
Seconded by Oisín Kelly, Postgraduate Arts

humbert

Normally I'd say the president should do what the council vote for but given that it is the SU council I'll reserve judgement till I know more.

Actually as far as I understand it I'd be in favour of that.

The_Minister

The SU got in huge trouble when this was abused before - thats why they don't think you should have it - its some of the college's most sensitive material, and you ma'am, are no fan of the college.

hullaballoo

Vainglory, could you merge your own posts from now on. Just edit the stuff in that you want to add. Cheers.

Vainglory

Firespinner wrote:

The SU got in huge trouble when this was abused before - thats why they don't think you should have it - its some of the college's most sensitive material, and you ma'am, are no fan of the college.

Do you mean when a load of Councillors on Governing Authority voted for a rise in postgraduate fees and the SU President at the time told their constituencies that they had voted that way, thus making them very scared of losing their seats?

Don't you think that was the right thing to do? Do you think people like that should be allowed to take decisions about raising fees without having to admit that they did it?

If there's nothing to hide then there isn't a problem.

Anyway, this isn't like the last time. The last time, information from Finance was made PUBLICALLY available. I only want it to be made available to other Student members of Governing Authority, as is the case in TCD, DCU etc..

The_Minister

Maybe all members of the Governing Authority can't be trusted to keep their mouths shut?


I think that decisions regarding fees should be taken in private, weighed on the facts not at the whim of students who cannot see past their wallet. Some decisions, to get an honest answer, need to occur in private.

Red Alert

Firespinner, if a decision is to be taken or proposed by anybody she/he must be big enough to put their name to their views. Imagine if my local TD was secretly in favour of Guantanamo or criminalised homosexuality I would not want to vote him in. Imagine therefore if the TD I elect was allowed make certain statements in private to avoid his constituents!! If there are fee-supporting people on the governing authority they should be proud enough to wear it on their sleeve and not hide behind a ridiculous degree of confidentiality such as this.

Would I be wrong to presume that the Finance (or any other) commitee's operation is subject to the Freedom of Information act? It's my understanding that a Freedom of Information request can be made to any state body such as UCD.

I agree with JHJ's motion here. Mr Carroll is not just James Caroll, he is the union's representative. He must follow council's mandate, he cannot refuse to do so even if the college, Red Alert on boards.ie or George Bush agree with him. If he doesn't agree with the job he's asked to do, he can resign and walk away.

The_Minister

Red Alert wrote:

Firespinner, if a decision is to be taken or proposed by anybody she/he must be big enough to put their name to their views. Imagine if my local TD was secretly in favour of Guantanamo or criminalised homosexuality I would not want to vote him in. Imagine therefore if the TD I elect was allowed make certain statements in private to avoid his constituents!!

They are allowed - its called cabinet confidentiality. Its enshrined in the Constitution. At some point in the decision-making process for any elected body there must be a place where they can talk "at ease". Not be pc or worried about the voters but for the overal good. One of the main flaws of democracy is that it makes representatives whores to the whim of the people.

Red Alert

The cabinet are subject to final approval of the oireachtas before anything can actually happen.

It seems that the finance commitee do have a high degree of autonomous power, and it's likely that others on the GA are supportive of this closed-shop approach.

Sangre

Firespinner has a point. Just because a TD* pushes for a certain agenda in private doesn't mean he will do it in his public capacity. A TD should be allowed to have an opinion differing from that which he lobbies for his constituencies.

*or whatever

pretty*monster

Sangre wrote:

Firespinner has a point. Just because a TD* pushes for a certain agenda in private doesn't mean he will do it in his public capacity. A TD should be allowed to have an opinion differing from that which he lobbies for his constituencies.

*or whatever

What? A personal oppinion perhaps, but surely not one he acts on in his capacity as a TD. That's essentially lying to the electorate... we can't have that.

Sangre

haha..I just realised what I said makes NO sense. And by no sense I mean completely and utterly the EXACT opposite of what I was trying to say.

anonymous_joe

Hurrah.

Red Alert

Sange and Firespinner surely that makes a manifesto pointless and they may as well throw dice for the seat...

Back OT, this isn't about what some member of the GA may or may not do.

JHJ's motion is based on the fact that the president of the SU, employed/elected to act on their behalf failed to represent the position of council as required by his mandate.

singingstranger

Basically it's not a case of whether the other members of GA can be trusted or not. James's mandate only obliges him to distribute the minutes of the Finance Committee meetings to the other student members of GA, who are Jane herself and Abey Campbell (who sits as a non-SU affiliated postgraduate students' rep). (Caveat: there might be a fourth but I can't remember who it is right now.) The matter at hand, as was debated at Council, is only to give Jane and Abey the minutes of the Finance Committee meetings.

It might be worth pointing out that James was out of the country when this Council took place. I would personally imagine that if he had BEEN at Council and had heard the debate on either side - as far as I remember all of his current reservations were pointed out at Council, but the motion was still passed - that he'd be following his mandate. tbh I'm surprised and disappointed that he's kicking up a fuss just because he wasn't there to speak against the motion personally.

For the sake of convenience I'm attaching a portion of the minutes from April 5th's Council, dealing with this motion and the debate that ensued.

panda100

As Ive said before I dont think Council is at all representative of the students its meant to represent so until new measures are brought in for the class rep/council system then I think UCD has every right to overturn a descision made by a bunch of looney hack politcal wannabees.

Edited after Singingstrangers post:

Intresting point made by Niall Dolan:
'He said that Paul Dillon had been kicked off the Committee by revealing a misallocation of funds that could have been better spent elsewhere. '

Is this the same Niall Dolann that has misued the student hardship fund and/or union funds for getting arressted at a anti-war march??

I think Luke Hayden got it spot on here:
'Voting yes would be a knee-jerk reaction'
While it is an admirable motion that Jane and Oisinn put forward I dont think they have thought about the consequences fully.As abey Cambell said students have worked hard to get a position on the ga
' Abey Campbell, speaking against, said that he sat on Governing Authority as a non-Union Postgraduate Rep. He said that lots of finance committees produced clean and sterilised versions of their minutes. The legal reasons for this are complex and intricate. Procedures are, however, in place to view these minutes, as a curb measure against leaks, and this process has been neglected as of late. There is only a concern about this at present because some Governors fear leaking of these minutes. He said that he felt this motion should have instead been presented at Governing Authority. He added that some forms of GA minutes were released and that they only said as much as could be genuinely offered without causing legal complications. He concluded that Students, with Staff, had fought for years to secure seats on GA and that these seats should not be jeopardised by irresponsibility. '

Also since the vote was so close.....19 votes to 17 and we know that there are unelected reps on council I think they should be asked to step down for that vote as they were not voted in by their class so are only representing themselves.

Vainglory

panda100 wrote:

As Ive said before I dont think Council is at all representative of the students its meant to represent so until new measures are brought in for the class rep/council system then I think UCD has every right to overturn a descision made by a bunch of looney hack politcal wannabees..

Panda do you not see that if you let the college overturn now, then they will have precedent to overturn anytime, no matter whether YOU think it's a good representative council or not.

panda100 wrote:

Is this the same Niall Dolann that has misued the student hardship fund and/or union funds for getting arressted at a anti-war march??..

Is this relevant at all?

panda100 wrote:

He said that lots of finance committees produced clean and sterilised versions of their minutes. The legal reasons for this are complex and intricate. Procedures are, however, in place to view these minutes, as a curb measure against leaks, and this process has been neglected as of late. There is only a concern about this at present because some Governors fear leaking of these minutes. He said that he felt this motion should have instead been presented at Governing Authority. He added that some forms of GA minutes were released and that they only said as much as could be genuinely offered without causing legal complications. He concluded that Students, with Staff, had fought for years to secure seats on GA and that these seats should not be jeopardised by irresponsibility. '.

I think this is where me and you fundamentally differ. Of course, I agree that positions on committees are useful. But I do not think that positions on committees are in any way useful if you do nothing with them. If you are not allowed to represent the wishes of the people who pay your wages, then there is really no point being on the committee at all. We are being trampled all over here, and it is time to take a stand. I do not want "clean" and "sterilised" minutes. As a governor of this University, I want access to the minutes of the Finance Committee, as is the case for my sabbatical friends in TCD and DCU, for example. And what's this mad preoccupation with leaks? How would you define a leak? "Something they would rather we didn't know about." UCD is funded predominantly by public money. If there's anything dodgy here then shouldn't we know about it?

I also don't call "following mandate given to the President by class reps" irresponsible. I call it doing his bloody job.

UCD themselves have created a climate of distrust and suspicion here. Surely, if there's nothing that wouldn't worry students and taxpayers in the minutes, then they would just show them to us rather than create all this fuss.

panda100 wrote:

Also since the vote was so close.....19 votes to 17 and we know that there are unelected reps on council I think they should be asked to step down for that vote as they were not voted in by their class so are only representing themselves.

........

All reps on council are elected. Some are elected unopposed (Like Mary McAleese. You know her, right?) But all are elected. If we only had the contested election class reps voting on this motion then there would probably only be about 20 people on council.

singingstranger wrote:

It might be worth pointing out that James was out of the country when this Council took place. I would personally imagine that if he had BEEN at Council and had heard the debate on either side - as far as I remember all of his current reservations were pointed out at Council, but the motion was still passed - that he'd be following his mandate. tbh I'm surprised and disappointed that he's kicking up a fuss just because he wasn't there to speak against the motion personally.

Gaaaaaav, come on. Do you really think that James just doesn't want to give me the minutes because he "didn't hear the arguments in favour?" James wouldn't give me those minutes even if the bloody Pope had come and argued on my side. He didn't intend to give them to me no matter what the vote at Council had been. And that, really, is the huge problem here.

panda100

Vainglory wrote:

All reps on council are elected. .

Really???Why even some of the reps themselves admit that they were not elected......for example over on the UCD site the fourth year mech eng rep when I asked him did he run as an elected class rep...

'Class reps: Yes, Elected: No (speaking for myself only). I'm not that representative of my class, to say the least'

Well at least he had the gumption to admit he was not democratically elected and he even admits he is not representative of his class then excuse me If I ignore everything that council passes and Im not suprised Hugh Brady and Nolan do the same!

Vainglory

panda100 wrote:

Really???Why even some of the reps themselves admit that they were not elected......for example over on the UCD site the fourth year mech eng rep when I asked him did he run as an elected class rep...

'Class reps: Yes, Elected: No (speaking for myself only). I'm not that representative of my class, to say the least'

Well at least he had the gumption to admit he was not democratically elected and he even admits he is not representative of his class then excuse me If I ignore everything that council passes and Im not suprised Hugh Brady and Nolan do the same!

Perhaps Conor was confused. All class reps are elected. Some are elected unopposed. But they are still elected. If you would like to double check this, I think the Returning Officer Morgan Shelley has an account on this site.

singingstranger

Vainglory wrote:

All class reps are elected. Some are elected unopposed. But they are still elected.

This be true, Panda - it's not like I was appointed as Vice-Secretary and then Secretary, I was elected, just nobody allowed their name forward to run against me.

Only elections I've ever been involved in that I won. Which in one way makes me smirk, but in another way desperately sad. *has flashbacks of the Sabbat elections* Sigh.

Anyway, yes, all Class Reps are elected, but they just don't bother holding a ballot if there's only going to be one name on the paper, á la the McAleese example that Vainglory offered. tbh because of this, a lot of Class Rep elections are never publicised at all (say if the candidate slyly just goes around, gets 10 signatures, sends in their form and is unopposed for the job) and many Reps simply don't feel accountable to their classes as a result. This is the sort of thing that has the Union in the state that it is, where a lot of policy motions are being passed while many other people think that those who support them are in the minority.

**edit: sticking this in to avoid a double post.

Vainglory wrote:

Gaaaaaav, come on. Do you really think that James just doesn't want to give me the minutes because he "didn't hear the arguments in favour?" James wouldn't give me those minutes even if the bloody Pope had come and argued on my side. He didn't intend to give them to me no matter what the vote at Council had been. And that, really, is the huge problem here.

Jaaaaaaane, I think you're missing me just a tad. What I mean is that I think James feels detached from responsibility to the particular motion because it wasn't really passed under his watch. Which of course, is a fundamental irresponsibility on his part too.

I do think, though, that had he been present when it was passed that he would follow his mandate. Feel free to call me naive but I reckon he genuinely would.

Red Alert

The fact is with all the small and large changes happening in UCD in this few years, the taxpayer, student, and staff member all need to see who's making the decisions and for what reason. There was no reason to refurbish Hugh Brady's house and keep it secret. What other similar abuses are going on that we don't know about.

It is pointless being a spectator on the GA if Jane & Co. cannot change anything because they are being hindered not only by the administration, but by their own president.

If James refuses to do as the motion says he should be removed from his office. Can a vote of council secure this?

(Eugenia K (Finance Officer) says in the council minutes that 17 year old reps can't see shop staff pensions - i presume she means there's an SU finance commitee?)

Blowfish

I'm actually with Abey on this one. If I read correctly, the council voted to make the president reveal the info to others. Surely the council should be asking the GA to be allowed to do this, rather than the president? If the GA don't want it done, all they have to do is kick the president out. I can see why the president is going against this.

As regards the original question about the general case, I think the college should be able to overule certain stuff. Just as i'm sure everyone in the SU would agree that a college that ignores the requests and decisions of the SU could end up in bad situations for the students, the converse is also true. An SU which ignores the requests and decisions of the college will cause problems also.

Red Alert

So suppose the college decides it's going to get into bed with Centra, and ban (or ask the SU not to) run shops should they obey?

Vainglory

Blowfish wrote:

I'm actually with Abey on this one. If I read correctly, the council voted to make the president reveal the info to others. Surely the council should be asking the GA to be allowed to do this, rather than the president? If the GA don't want it done, all they have to do is kick the president out. I can see why the president is going against this..

SIPTU reps on GA already asked to be allowed see the minutes. I supported them on this. But, (as ALWAYS), the bigger wigs voted us down. This is my point - sometimes just being on the committees doesn't allow you to get things done.

Blowfish wrote:

As regards the original question about the general case, I think the college should be able to overule certain stuff. Just as i'm sure everyone in the SU would agree that a college that ignores the requests and decisions of the SU could end up in bad situations for the students, the converse is also true. An SU which ignores the requests and decisions of the college will cause problems also.

Errr...

Do you actually think the "converse" is true? I wasn't aware that the SU had the power to literally overrule the College's decisions (sure wouldn't it be a great world if we could?). However, in this case, they would be given the power to overrule Council decisions.

panda100

singingstranger wrote:

This be true, Panda - it's not like I was appointed as Vice-Secretary and then Secretary, I was elected, just nobody allowed their name forward to run against me.

I dont think its true ss and vainglory and have proof to back this up. I am not talking about being elected as Vice Secratary...that is completely different...Once again you are voted in by members of council not us students.
I am talking about being voted in as class rep.If you are run unapposed thats fine but you should still get up infront of your class and say 'Im running as your class rep even though Im runnning unapposed could you still all write down on a piece of paer whether you would ron me or have me be as your class rep'. I have never seen this done in an unapossed class rep election.Usually the person just puts there number down as the class rep list.

AS was the case for Amy morgan,good friend of mine and our class rep two years ago. She knew someone in the union and they just wrote her number down and there she was class rep.Of course she was unapposed but it still doesnt make it...there should have been a ron vote etc. Also bigJimthefirst's class rep this year (forgotten her name again) is down as third year class rep and used it to her advantage in the med soc secratary elections.....yet we have never seen her and there was no election,unoppsed or not.

Im positive this is not just medicine and happens in other courses too. Dave Curran run unopposed this year but he was still elected fairly but this is not the case in class reps....Its just a case of if no one else runs then you just put your name down.

singingstranger

Red Alert wrote:

If James refuses to do as the motion says he should be removed from his office. Can a vote of council secure this?

I think you need to collect the 800-or-so signatures and hold an impeachment referendum, which is an utterly pointless exercise this late in his term.

Red Alert wrote:

(Eugenia K (Finance Officer) says in the council minutes that 17 year old reps can't see shop staff pensions - i presume she means there's an SU finance commitee?)

Well, given that the Management Committee as created in the March amendments has room for a Rep or two (again, can't quite remember which, my constitutional knowledge has been displaced by Management Accounting), it was brought up and agreed at Exec when we were drafting the (since-abandoned or postponed or whatever) new document that it was unreasonable to have Reps on the committee because it was unfair to have these students - possibly of 17 years old - privy to the pension details of the shop staff.

singingstranger

panda100 wrote:

I am talking about being voted in as class rep.If you are run unapposed thats fine but you should still get up infront of your class and say 'Im running as your class rep even though Im runnning unapposed could you still all write down on a piece of paer whether you would ron me or have me be as your class rep'. I have never seen this done in an unapossed class rep election.Usually the person just puts there number down as the class rep list.

Well, the basic idea is that you need 10 signatures from your constituents on your nomination form. If you can't get the 10 then clearly there's a mass-movement against you getting the seat. Any rep on Council is supposed to have been 'endorsed' in this way by 10 of their Constituents. I think this year in the end, Dave decreed that any ten students could sign a form, which of course meant that it was open for a load of unpopular students to sign each others forms and get each other into office. Which, I might add, is unconstitutional.

panda100 wrote:

AS was the case for Amy morgan,good friend of mine and our class rep two years ago. She knew someone in the union and they just wrote her number down and there she was class rep.Of course she was unapposed but it still doesnt make it...there should have been a ron vote etc. Also bigJimthefirst's class rep this year (forgotten her name again) is down as third year class rep and used it to her advantage in the med soc secratary elections.....yet we have never seen her and there was no election,unoppsed or not.

I have no idea about BigJim's rep so I'm not going to touch on that one, but if this was the case with Amy then that, too, was deeply unconstitutional, unless the person she knew in the office went and got the signatures on her behalf.

panda100 wrote:

Im positive this is not just medicine and happens in other courses too. Dave Curran run unopposed this year but he was still elected fairly but this is not the case in class reps....Its just a case of if no one else runs then you just put your name down.

tbh what you're after is a RON provision for all class rep elections - which on the face of it is a good idea, and to an extent I agree with you, because it would publicise every Class Rep election - but given the huge amount of uncontested elections there are, it simply wouldn't be worth the money to have ballot papers printed for them.

Again, it all boils down to apathy on the part of the students in general, who couldn't give a crap how their own Rep votes at Council. Because of this, the Reps themselves become apathetic to their constituents' views and stop being Reps and merely Councillors.
I know I'm treading on thinning ice here but frankly I think that's the reason why there are so many decisions passed at Council that seem largely to fly in the face of the beliefs of most of the student body.

Sorry for going off-topic but I guess the principle of Reps voting according to their own views in every Council vote is parallel to what James seems to be at, and what some other people were talking about earlier with regard to TD's (or whoever) having private time to still follow their own ideas.

Red Alert

Cheers ss, i was just making sure that this was a different commitee, as the comment seemed a bit orthogonal to the main thread of discussion in the motion.

The way I see it despite the intervention of the IAB, Carroll's credibility is unrepairably tarnished.

He sits as an SU Rep on the GA. His primary duty of care is to the SU. Morally he therefore must do as the SU directs or leave. Council is there to debate the consequences of any such action. The only decision for him to make is to follow council's mandate or remove himself from his position.

Blowfish

Vainglory wrote:

Do you actually think the "converse" is true? I wasn't aware that the SU had the power to literally overrule the College's decisions (sure wouldn't it be a great world if we could?). However, in this case, they would be given the power to overrule Council decisions.

It doesn't have to overturn decisions to be too powerful. An example (and I know it's a different situation, but it's just an example) is the teachers unions. It is far too difficult to sack teachers who are absolutely crap at their job. I had some of them in school, and tbh they simply were in the wrong job, they couldn't teach for the life of them (thankfully the college lecturers i've had are grand, some not perfect, but ok none the less). The school couldn't get rid of them though, as they would immediately have the unions on their back. Having the bad teachers stay was obviously not in the best interests of the students, no matter what way you look at it. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of unions, as they do prevent people from being sacked for stupid reasons (among other things), but I don't believe either side should have too much sway with the other.

Vorsprung

panda100 wrote:

Also bigJimthefirst's class rep this year (forgotten her name again) is down as third year class rep and used it to her advantage in the med soc secratary elections.....yet we have never seen her and there was no election,unoppsed or not.

Just to clarify, I never did find out if she was actually our rep, but yea it was used as a campaign line alright.

EDIT - Actually did we find out Panda?

singingstranger

I DO remember seeing a name for one somewhere but when I was given the list at the start of the year I don't recall one being on it. I'll have a look.

**edit: No, no sign. Interesting enough. I think I might have seen her name in the What's On guide or something. If one of you two could PM me her name I could tell you if hers is the name I saw?

panda100

singingstranger wrote:

tbh what you're after is a RON provision for all class rep elections - which on the face of it is a good idea, and to an extent I agree with you, because it would publicise every Class Rep election - but given the huge amount of uncontested elections there are, it simply wouldn't be worth the money to have ballot papers printed for them.

.

So there is alot of uncontested elections for class reps......thought as much
Anyway my point is these uncontested,undemocrattically elected reps do not represnt us students as a whole.I think UCD realise this and so passing this motion at council really bears no weight with them.

I have tried to explain on the other thread why so many of these class rep positions are uncontested and why students and UCD dont really give a sh*t about council meetings beacuse of the silly motions passed at them. Yet all we hear is continually defence of a corrupt system with the only people involved who want to see UCD move back 100 years.

Red alert , Vainglory, prettymonster have made it very clear that they think Brady is a dangerous man. Well I am saying this for the record that I think those on the union who are a constant thorn in Nolans and Bradys side are dangerous (cue the wait too see whose dangerous when free fee's are introduced argument:rolleyes: ) will drag this college back 10 paces. This university has come on more in the last two years then it has in the last 10years and thats all thanks to Hugh Brady and his shake up of an old college. How does passing this motion help us ,the students, relationship with the colllege authorities? Not at all,but you keep on fighting the fight...solidarity and all:rolleyes: