Constitution referendum

evercloserunion

Does anyone else think it's a bit daft, in the run-up to end-of-year exams, for the SU to email us and have us read through 2 constitutions so we can choose which one is better without even telling us the main points where the constitutions differ?

As I don't have the time or the willpower to read through the two constitutions they sent me, can anyone enlighten me as to the main differences between the two? Is it all procedural or are there substantive changes?

Frankly if I don't have the new constitution explained to me in great detail I'm going to assume that it involves aborting our babies, microchipping them and then conscripting them to fight and die (again) for the SU elite.

Unregistered.

You mean you've never read the existing Constitution?! :eek:


See attachment for the proposed draft constitution.

evercloserunion

Is that a joke?

BTW I'm not an SU rep or anything...

snappieT

I will be voting no in the hope that future years will realise the current constitution is fine, and will stop wasting time trying to change it.

Karlusss

Seriously, backing this request for a bullet point summary of how they're different, or at least a list of things I should be looking for if I do have to read them.

If you're not familiar with the current one (and shockingly enough I'm not) it's pretty hard to scour the new one for innovations.

ilovemybrick

The changes begin with a clearer structure, the addition of chapters that are clearly defined and outlined.

The job currently known as Deputy President/Communications Officer will be known now as simply Communications Officer. The job of deputising for the President will now be formally enshrined as part of the role of the Education officer. This reflects more accurately the current practice of the Education Officer covering for the President for College committees.

The fomation of an Oversight Commission is added to the new draft, this commission will comprise of 3 elected members who will oversee madates and policy. The commission is designed to ensure that officers of the Union follow the madates laid down to them.

The internal mechanics of SU Council itself will also change, if the new draft is accepted, reducing the number of mandatory council meetings and streamlining their operations by reducing the amount of standing committees and also adding the option of “Points of Clarification” so that direct questions may be asked of speakers. The controversial equal time rule which neccessitated that each side of an argument must have equal spearkers will also be removed.

The creation of Faculty Assemblies allows that each of these meetings will be official rather than ad hoc and these assemblies will now also have the power to elect Convenors and also bring motions or policy to Council directly.

The creation of schedule 4 will create a formal record of official Union policy and leaves responsibility for it, and its maintenance, to the Education Officer and the OC.

A number of smaller changes include the removal of TSM convenor, an improvement in the financial accountability of the sabbatical officers and directs the Union to create a staff position of Technical Officer.

As a measure to ensure that glitches in the constitution can be resolved there is a transitory provision that ensures that a Special Council can be formed to amend certain detailings of the constitution with the proviso that this provision has a specific lifetime which is uncontestable.

Copies of the full draft will be made available from the SU front office for any interested students. Voting will take place on the 15th and 16th of April.

tolosenc

No dissaffiliation protocol => a NO vote from me.

Jonathan

obl wrote: »

No dissaffiliation protocol => a NO vote from me.

I asked Hugh about it and this is what he said..

Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Unfortunately there's a legal bind here. I've looked into this in detail.

I suppose you do have the right to leave the union but legally college cannot allow us to have an opt out.
The University is legally obliged to have student representation at all levels of student services and academic policy, this is why college only recognises the Students' Union as the sole representative for undergrads. If students left the Union they would have to become members of board to represent themselves.

That is why, as I understand it, becoming a student in Trinity makes you a member of the Union automatically.
Apart from it being an issue of Unity, it's a college arrangement too.

Hope this clears it up,

dan719

jmccrohan wrote: »

I asked Hugh about it and this is what he said..

Surely students can claim to have representation at all levels through their tutor? Anyway, what if I am willing to waive my right to representation at all levels of the college?

tolosenc

Or when doing stuff, could their official title be changed to TCDSU - not representing the views or opinions of: x, y, z, ....? :P

dan719

dan719 wrote: »

Surely students can claim to have representation at all levels through their tutor?

How would that work?

Unregistered.

dan719 wrote: »

Surely students can claim to have representation at all levels through their tutor? Anyway, what if I am willing to waive my right to representation at all levels of the college?

Not really... It seems to reason that you would need some sort of lawyer/solicitor to represent you in College if you were not part of the SU because you HAVE to have representation as was already mentioned.

Liquorice

Surely opting out of the students' union is more akin to opting out of citizenship (though clearly not as extreme) than opting out of a political party? I mean, a lot of people don't agree with the government and feel that only a certain type of person goes into politics, but they don't renounce their citizenship, and if they feel just that strongly they can go abroad and apply for citizenship of another country, or stage a coup d'etat. What's the motivation behind opting out of the SU and what do those of you who want to think it will gain? Is it just an ideological thing? I'm not smacking anyone across the face with my glove of INTERNET ARGUMENTS, I'm just curious.

Boston

That all sounds very reasonably and well thought out. Its a no vote from me however.

tolosenc

Liquorice wrote: »

Surely opting out of the students' union is more akin to opting out of citizenship (though clearly not as extreme) than opting out of a political party? I mean, a lot of people don't agree with the government and feel that only a certain type of person goes into politics, but they don't renounce their citizenship, and if they feel just that strongly they can go abroad and apply for citizenship of another country, or stage a coup d'etat. What's the motivation behind opting out of the SU and what do those of you who want to think it will gain? Is it just an ideological thing? I'm not smacking anyone across the face with my glove of INTERNET ARGUMENTS, I'm just curious.

No, it's exactly the same as disaffiliating from a union which you feel does not represent, and often represents the exact converse of, one's own views.

PurpleFistMixer

From what I've gathered, my class rep and semi-class-rep (maths and tp get so blurred at times) spent the weekend or so agonising over the constitutional changes, so I'd assume the place to go, aside from ilovemybrick, for a breakdown, is your class rep. Assuming they're competent, that is.

Also, re:leaving the SU, there was a thread on that topic a while ago, so if people want to continue discussing it in detail I can move things over and we can keep this on the topic of the constitutional changes at hand.

Is there something controversial in this amendment that I'm missing, which people are objecting to? It looks all pretty... well, boring, to me.

JC 2K3

Liquorice wrote: »

stage a coup d'etat

Hmmm...

Pet

No yawns can express the amount of yawn I feel over this issue.