Legal opinion - DUCAC constitution

BlueCam

This is for any of ye law students out there.. I'd appreciate your opinion!

As you may or may not know, five years ago DUCAC placed a cap on the number of clubs which can be affiliated to it, limiting it to the then-existing 49. As a member of one of the unaffiliated clubs (American football, but there's triathlon and two or three others too), it had been my understanding that this rule was in their constitution. You would think that rules limiting membership would be.

After finally getting my hands on it today, I was surprised to note that there is no mention of any such rule. Following a meeting with Drinda Jones, DUCAC's head administrator, it turns out the rule was made arbitrarily by DUCAC's Executive Committee, and has simply been in place ever since.

So basically I've parsed through their constitution and I believe strongly that the rule is, indeed, wholly unconstitutional. Reasoning is as follows.

--

Article 16(c) of the DUCAC constitution:

No new Rule or alteration of the Rules shall be made unless at an Annual General Meeting or a General Meeting of D.U.C.A.C. Notice of intention to propose a new Rule or rules or the alteration of an existing Rule or Rules shall be delivered to the Hon. Secretary of D.U.C.A.C. with the names of the proposer and seconder at least 1 days prior to the Meeting concerned and shall be posted by him at the Front Gate of the College at least 10 days prior to such Meeting. Such Notice shall contain the terms of the proposed new Rule or Rules or the alteration sought to be made. No new Rule or new Rules shall be made or alteration of an existing Rule or Rules shall be made except by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting, PROVIDED ALWAYS that the Executive Committee shall have power to alter or amend the said Rules but only for the purpose of complying with any existing or future legislation or Court decisions in relation to clubs.

Pursuant to the above article, the DUCAC Executive Committee does not have the power to make a new rule, rather it can only propose such a rule which must then be passed by a two-thirds majority at an Annual General Meeting or a General Meeting of DUCAC. The only circumstances in which the Executive Committee has the power to alter or amend rules that have been passed is in the event of legislative or judicial decision to that effect.

Therefore:

Article 12 of the DUCAC constitution:

No Sports Club in the University shall be affiliated to D.U.C.A.C. unless such affiliation be approved by the Executive Committee and ratified at an Annual General Meeting of D.U.C.A.C.

Pursuant to the above article, in refusing to consider the affiliation of new sports clubs on a fair and equal basis, the Executive Committee is in dereliction of its duties.

--

In legalistic terms does that make sense? If anyone wants to see the full constitution, I'll email it to you, since every student is technically a member of DUCAC then I assume we all have a right to see it.

Also, who is responsible for overseeing the five capitated bodies, does anyone know?

Many thanks.

Boston

You're under a miss guided perception that this is a legal matter. It's a matter to do with the internal rules governing a private organisation.

Secondarly you assume it was never approved at an AGM. For years now the issue of the club limit has been brought up and everyone is aware that the rule can be over turned at an AGM or EGM.

gearoidof

Well, what are the conditions for "unless such affiliation be approved by the Executive Committee"?

BlueCam

Boston wrote: »

You're under a miss guided perception that this is a legal matter. It's a matter to do with the internal rules governing a private organisation.

Secondarly you assume it was never approved at an AGM. For years now the issue of the club limit has been brought up and everyone is aware that the rule can be over turned at an AGM or EGM.

Sorry, I don't mean to give the impression that I think this is illegal - merely that it is unconstitutional based on their own rules, and therefore whoever is overseeing DUCAC can order it to be removed. I mean the reason constitutions exist is so that the rules governing an organization are fair and transparent, and by its very virtue then their must be a way of holding the organization's officers to account if they operate outside the rules which have been set down.

Secondly, Drinda specifically stated it was never voted upon at an AGM. Should have clarified that. And a rule that is unconstitutional shouldn't have to be overturned - it has never been proposed or passed in the first place.

BlueCam

gearoidof wrote: »

Well, what are the conditions for "unless such affiliation be approved by the Executive Committee"?

There are none. But by not allowing clubs to even apply, they can't reject or approve them.

gearoidof

I'm sure DUCAC could dis-approve you in advance.

Kurtosis

gearoidof wrote: »

I'm sure DUCAC could dis-approve you in advance.

And on what basis? The OP suggests that due process is not being followed, as defined by the DUCAC constitution. As stated already, the constitution is there to govern the organisation and is operated as intended, not according to the whims of any individuals involved.

Even if DUCAC do simply reject any new club applicants, at least they will be following the correct protocols and there's more of a chance of getting approved in such a situation than with no consideration at all as it is currently.

I'd say fair play to BlueCam for doing his homework and actually trying to change the system that's in place at the moment.

just-joe

Just wondering why you think the cap is in place? And what you think would happen if the cap was lifted?

BlueCam

just-joe wrote: »

Just wondering why you think the cap is in place? And what you think would happen if the cap was lifted?

DUCAC claim the cap is in place because of "funding constraints". Now first of all, that is bullsh!t. The CSC operates under the exact same funding constraints (and indeed, it doesn't have the Pav as an extra source of revenue), with several notable differences:

• Its procedure for applying for grants is transparent with a set criteria on which a society's application is judged. DUCAC has no criteria.
• The CSC publishes its list of allocations for the year. DUCAC does not.
• The CSC has an officer (the secretary) whose "chief responsibility is to liase with students who wish to establish new societies. The Secretary can advise prospective societies on writing a constitution, and makes recommendations to the Executive on the recognition of new societies". DUCAC has no such officer.
• The CSC has strict criteria under which a society may be disaffiliated: should it not publish accounts, or should it not elect a committee. DUCAC's only criterion is that you have to have one meeting every two years (that's right, you don't even have to engage in your sport).
• The CSC includes in its constitution the exact procedure detailing how a new society may become affiliated and on what criteria they will be judged. DUCAC has no procedure, let alone having it in their constitution.

And the result of all of those differences? In the words of Rob Kearns, "I can tell you that the CSC does not cap society numbers and I know that that's because we have never seen any need to."

What do I think would happen if the cap is lifted? In an ideal world, every sports club gets a chance to apply for funds, and based on a competitive application process judged on fair and known criteria, DUCAC allocates it in whatever manner it sees fit. Obviously I don't believe for a moment DUCAC will ever create criteria for judging applications (it had its chance to do so in the proposed constitution; it didn't), so what will simply happen when the cap is lifted is that every sports club applies for funds and Cyril Smyth allocates it at his whim, as happens now. (And he will probably allocate us nothing, but at least we have a chance - with the status quo we get nothing, regardless.) And just to state again... this isn't about every club receiving the exact same amount of money. This is on a much baser level than that - this is about the fact that there is simply no justification for not allowing certain clubs to apply for funds. Is aikido more worthwhile than American football? Hey quite possibly, but why are they entitled to ask for money and we're not?

Finally, if DUCAC has such good reasons for having a cap, it's had five chances to propose it at an AGM, as material rules limiting your membership should be. It hasn't; it made it behind closed doors and worse still is the fact that there is a sitting judge on the DUCAC Executive Committee who should be more qualified than most to know when you're blatantly in breach of your own constitution. (And the reason they never did propose it, I'm pretty sure, is they know damn well that two-thirds of students would never vote to allow DUCAC decide arbitrarily what sport they want to kill off next.)

(Oh also, the CSC's constitution is online for anyone to read. It took me six weeks, two visits, and two emails to get DUCAC's.)

Denerick

The only thing worse than student politics is student law.

gearoidof

@penguin88, call it a gut feeling.

You compare DUCAC to the CSC, and while I won't for a second say that DUCAC isn't worse, you should consider that a lot of societies have pretty low running costs. I don't know any club with DUCAC, with the notable exception of croquet and their 0€ claiming, who get enough money. Even rowing, the best off club, have to fundraise.

Expansion means teams get less overall. Mind if I ask how DUCAC supports American football currently? I know you guys get pitch time in santry, not sure what else.

electrogrimey

Denerick wrote: »

The only thing worse than student politics is student law.

I love that you spend your life on here giving out about the way the SU etc in Trinity is run, and yet at the first opportunity someone mentions to make a change for the better, you decide to slate that too.

If you're against everything, what are you in favour of?

(Cue smugly cynical nihilistic response.)

Sid_Justice

I've never really been certain what Ducac's reasons for this "sports cap" was. I thought maybe they just didn't approve of random trendy sports (MMA, frisbee, weightlifting, ice hockey, pot holing, american football) with a small but determined group starting clubs, doing a few things and disbanding shortly later. This happens a lot in they CSC as new societies, grow exponentially, collapse, and disappear. Some older societies seems to go through cycles of activity.

I don't think it was ever really a funding issue, cause most of the clubs don't really need big budgets or money for facilities or equipment. It may have been the shortage of facilities, especially prior to the new gym, that if they had an official "random martial art club" they'd have to allow them some time in the gym for training in, which may have been hard to accommodate.

Other theories I have is that DUCAC, like a couple of TCD bodies, are just inherently snobbish and xenophobic and don't want new things, or new personalties invading their cushy little organisation. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to scrap all the clubs except for the hockey, rugby, gaa, cricket, croquet, boat and soccer clubs. Boxing enjoyed a good relationship with them as the boxing lads of yesteryear did a great job getting on good terms with the powers that be in the offices.

The other issue, presumably, is that DUCAC is supposed to be a democratic organisation. In that captains from every club are entitled to vote on changes to the constitution and other motions. Like DUCAC has all these positions that go up for election every year, basically been won by guys who run unopposed who've been doing so for the last 30 years (some exaggeration there but also some truth). So in theory, the more clubs, they more votes, the greater the chance that there could be some kind of coup!

The most controversial episode in this , as best I know, was the cycle club. I don't know what problem DUCAC had with them,but i don't think they got recognition on their first application, or got a trial or something. I think there were a core group of hardcore cyclers who wanted to represent the university in competitions. I'm not sure if they wanted big (ish) grants for expenses to participate. But anyway, i think they got some kind of recognition but the lads involved have since graduated (few years too) and i don't think there is any club left at all.

Another interesting loophole (kinda) is certain 'sports' applying for society status rather than sporting. Capoeira, a very gymnastic, acrobatic, dancy kind of brazialian martial art got acceptance as a society and they taught classes in the room about front arch (i think). The same with Yoga, which I suppose, isn't a sport either but kind of exercise based.

I'm not sure if the original poster wants to mention what sport he wants accredited. (on rereading his post, he's representing american football). I don't think Drinda Jones herself reads this forum but usually one of her minions puts her onto them if they gather enough momentum so speaking badly about ducac here could possibly blacklist you completely.

Or perhaps this is all a purely theoretical investigation for the sake of principle.

I'm trying to think of which sports really need recognition. Like if you want do let's say, Lacrosse, you're probably better off just joining a club in dublin (perhaps even UCD) rather than trying and start a club in the college. Edit - realised he's talking about American Football. I suppose the big benefit to having official status is that they can get a team together for the inter-varsities a bit easier. Fair enough. I suppose they'll want a shed load of funding for the gear :pac::pac:

Truth by told I've been a hypocritical fecker on this thread cos I didn't really read the previous posts because they were looked really long but despite that, thrown a whopper in myself.

Victor

Boston wrote: »

You're under a miss guided perception that this is a legal matter. It's a matter to do with the internal rules governing a private organisation.

What is law but a set of rules. As membership of DUCAC is mandatory, but if the benefits aren't somewhat equitably distributed, then such decisions could be challenged, in court if necessary.

Denerick

electrogrimey wrote: »

I love that you spend your life on here giving out about the way the SU etc in Trinity is run, and yet at the first opportunity someone mentions to make a change for the better, you decide to slate that too.

If you're against everything, what are you in favour of?

(Cue smugly cynical nihilistic response.)

My time in Trinity involves getting a good degree and on occasion, getting drunk. Everything else is superflous and up to the individuals involved. I refuse to consent to allowing political appartchiks poke their nose into my personal space with their egregious and pathetic partisanship over some absurd student political issue, or petty semantics like the DUCAC committee above.

(Cue smugly self righteous, airy fairy response.)

MrPain

Denerick wrote: »

My time in Trinity involves getting a good degree and on occasion, getting drunk. Everything else is superflous and up to the individuals involved. I refuse to consent to allowing political appartchiks poke their nose into my personal space with their egregious and pathetic partisanship over some absurd student political issue, or petty semantics like the DUCAC committee above.

(Cue smugly self righteous, airy fairy response.)

Ok, have a nice day.

Jammyc

Denerick wrote: »

I refuse to consent to allowing political appartchiks poke their nose into my personal space

That is quite possibly one of the most hilarious and hypocritical things I have ever heard you say! From what I've seen you're constantly butting in with your 'opinion on the matter', 'invading' normal conversation on this forum.

Denerick

Jammyc wrote: »

That is quite possibly one of the most hilarious and hypocritical things I have ever heard you say! From what I've seen you're constantly butting in with your 'opinion on the matter', 'invading' normal conversation on this forum.

This is an online forum where all views are welcome. I'm talking about the real world where some student twat pushes some crappy leaflet in my face. The only normal conversation I invade is the complacency of the deluded.

Brian

Denerick wrote: »

This is an online forum where all views are welcome.

So that's where you've been going wrong...

*sigh*

Take a seat young Denerick, there are certain things that I must explain to you.

Fo Real

Baza210 wrote: »

So that's where you've been going wrong...

*sigh*

Take a seat young Denerick, there are certain things that I must explain to you.

What are you insinuating? You think your opinion is more important than anyone elses? I may not agree with all of Denerick's views but he most certainly has a right to have them.

In my opinion there are too many bloody clueless first years on this forum spouting shíte like they've been in TCD all their life. I'm talking about guys like the extremely annoying Sligobrewer or JammyC. See above where JammyC is talking down to one of the veterans of this forum. The same naive children who voted in the recent SU elections, believing all the ridiculous promises made by the hacks that are repeated every year.

Listen and learn. Know your place.

Brian

I'm insulted that you think I'm that easy to troll.

Denerick

I agree with Foreal. Hits the nail on the head. Young intelligent people who have lived such a sheltered life have no idea of what the SU body means on a broader levell. 1st years are the worst for that. When you kids reach final year you'll probably know what I'm talking about. If not, you'll probably be leading one of these student organisations and climbing up that lifelong ladder of hackery.

electrogrimey

Denerick wrote: »

I agree with Foreal. Hits the nail on the head. Young intelligent people who have lived such a sheltered life have no idea of what the SU body means on a broader levell. 1st years are the worst for that. When you kids reach final year you'll probably know what I'm talking about. If not, you'll probably be leading one of these student organisations and climbing up that lifelong ladder of hackery.

So what does the SU body mean on a broader level, oh wise elder?

Denerick

electrogrimey wrote: »

So what does the SU body mean on a broader level, oh wise elder?

It means that people who desire political power are either ***** or twats. People who desire political power at university level tend to be just twats, but particularly egregious types.

electrogrimey

Denerick wrote: »

It means that people who desire political power are either ***** or twats. People who desire political power at university level tend to be just twats, but particularly egregious types.

No, that's not remotely what the SU body means on a broader level. It's not even a valid answer, you answered a completely different question...If I had asked 'what's your opinion of the people involved in the SU', then that would be a valid answer.

Troll fail.

Denerick

electrogrimey wrote: »

No, that's not remotely what the SU body means on a broader level. It's not even a valid answer, you answered a completely different question...If I had asked 'what's your opinion of the people involved in the SU', then that would be a valid answer.

Troll fail.

No, its what the SU represents. They represent individuals with no capacity for self criticism whoring themselves to institutions of political power. As I say, it attracts either one of two different personality types. Every so often someone like Gandhi comes along, but they are an anomoly.

First year, I take it?

Brian

... and thereafter, atrophy.

electrogrimey

Denerick wrote: »

No, its what the SU represents. They represent individuals with no capacity for self criticism whoring themselves to institutions of political power. As I say, it attracts either one of two different personality types. Every so often someone like Gandhi comes along, but they are an anomoly.

I realise the SU represents the people within it, who you believe to be hacks. I accept that. However, that's not what the SU means on a broader level.

I'll put it this way. If I asked what the Presidents Office of the US means on a broader level, and you said black people, do you think that'd be a valid answer? You're answering a different question, because the only answer you seem to have to any question is 'hacks, they're all hacks'.

Denerick

electrogrimey wrote: »

I realise the SU represents the people within it, who you believe to be hacks. I accept that. However, that's not what the SU means on a broader level.

I'll put it this way. If I asked what the Presidents Office of the US means on a broader level, and you said black people, do you think that'd be a valid answer? You're answering a different question, because the only answer you seem to have to any question is 'hacks, they're all hacks'.

I suggest you study the meaning of words. I was asked what the Student Union means on a broader level. I responded that it is a manifestation of egotistical twatwaffles eternal desire to attain political consequence in a hack driven world. It has no other purpose. If it does, it certainly doesn't do much for sheer altruistic reasons.

First year, I take it?

electrogrimey

Denerick wrote: »

I suggest you study the meaning of words. I was asked what the Student Union means on a broader level. I responded that it is a manifestation of egotistical twatwaffles eternal desire to attain political consequence in a hack driven world. It has no other purpose. If it does, it certainly doesn't do much for sheer altruistic reasons.

First year, I take it?

So to answer my question, you're trying to say that (you believe) it means nothing on a broader level?

Denerick

electrogrimey wrote: »

So to answer my question, you're trying to say that (you believe) it means nothing on a broader level?

The SU has one meaning on a broader level - a reflection of vain personal ambition.

First year, I take it?