Emergency union council tomorrow (Thursday 13th)

banquo

Emergency union council called tomorrow at noon in the venue. Be there. It's important.

*Rob

banquo

Ps screw up in thread title is because im on my iPod

irish_goat

What's it about?

doesntwatchtv

There's a vote of no confidence in the Welfare Officer happening

irish_goat

Given that she's been re-elected surely there's no point? I.e. She'd be "fired" and then get to take up the job again in July.

doesntwatchtv

There must be some reason. Something like this has never happened before so I guess she must have pulled something serious.

mickstupp

How do we organise a vote of no confidence in the government?

doesntwatchtv

mickstupp wrote: »

How do we organise a vote of no confidence in the government?

I guess we talk to the union and see how they're doing it

Seren_

Times like this make me wish I was a class rep... Next year though! And personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous that there's a vote of no confidence, especially for the reason I've been told.

Ian Beale

Your Text Here wrote: »

Times like this make me wish I was a class rep... Next year though! And personally, I think it's a bit ridiculous that there's a vote of no confidence, especially for the reason I've been told.

What is the reason though? She was re elected so what's the point? or are people just trying to be bitchy?

Seren_

Ian Beale wrote: »

What is the reason though? She was re elected so what's the point? or are people just trying to be bitchy?

I don't think I'll say what I've been told, just to spare feelings and stuff, but I think the text in bold might give you an idea.

Effluo

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=122877447738988

Well this has been organised for tomorrow

I'm afraid that if a council meeting has been called it's probably all over for her

Protest or no protest

irish_goat

What a waste of everyone's time. :rolleyes:

Who's responsible?

Seren_

It is a pretty stupid reason in my opinion. And the description of this facebook event page explains who are responsible.

mickstupp

Is there an actual good reason?
And I'd love to know who "Some members of union exec" are.
I like Liz, what did she do that people would try this?
Or is it something she didn't do that they think she should've done?

Alt_Grrr

mickstupp wrote: »

Is there an actual good reason?
And I'd love to know who "Some members of union exec" are.
I like Liz, what did she do that people would try this?
Or is it something she didn't do that they think she should've done?

I mean its easy to guess who "Some members of union exec"
are, and I won't name names (*cough* Eoin and Lydia), but it seems that, in the absence of any explanation or prior notification or warning, that this is an attack on Liz.

I mean, why else would they hold it on the day that some of the student body has exams? why else would they do this? and if liz did something SO out of line and SO bad, then why is this so secret and unspeakable?

Something smells fishy about this whole situation and what's worse is the silence around this is bringing OUR union (Not the execs union, OUR union) into disrepute.

I voted for Liz on two occasions and she still has my support.

Seren_

Can you go to Union Council if you're not a class rep? Obviously I know you wouldn't have voting/speaking rights or anything, but can you just turn up?

banquo

You can turn up. Speaking rights and votes are at the discretion of the returning officer.

It's in the venue at noon.

CnaG

A vote of no confidence in Liz? Unfortunately I'm going to have to try be fair... Even though she did get me kicked out of the election count… hmm. Is it possible to have a secret ballot does anyone know?

CnaG

irish_goat wrote: »

The plot thickens!

Tell us more!

Ah here now, no, lads stop it. Spreading libel... it might not be true.
Well, stop until tomorrow anyway. Is there some way of temporarily freezing this thread until then?

irish_goat

CnaG wrote: »

Ah here now, no, lads stop it. Spreading libel... it might not be true.
Well, stop until tomorrow anyway. Is there some way of temporarily freezing this thread until then?

Spoil the buzz...but yeah you're probably right.

banquo

I agree with CnaG. No posting unfounded rumors of any sort. Though I'd prefer the thread kept running, but kept clean of speculation (if that's possible...)

Alt_Grrr

CnaG wrote: »

Ah here now, no, lads stop it. Spreading libel... it might not be true.
Well, stop until tomorrow anyway. Is there some way of temporarily freezing this thread until then?

Nothing you hear tomorrow might be true as well?

I'm still edgy about this whole thing. Honestly whats SO bad that it hasn't come out in the open.

This whole thing seems crazy to me.

Only the Truth will set you free...

CnaG

banquo wrote: »

I agree with CnaG. No posting unfounded rumors of any sort. Though I'd prefer the thread kept running, but kept clean of speculation (if that's possible...)

Yeah, I think that's fair enough.

I'm a bit concerned we'll get egged or something going to UC tomorrow, after seeing that 42 people (edit: *possibly*) intend on screaming abuse at us on the way in/out. And I'm a bit peturbed by the whole "small elite" running everything thing. If anyone wanted to run things in an elite it was - oh no wait, no more bitching.

Also, is it in the venue? Yet again, I didn't get the email.

Edit. Read earlier posts again, yes, it's in the venue. Silly CnaG...

masherella88

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/event.php?eid=122877447738988
snip

I've been arguing on this page that nobody should be supporting anyone til they have all the facts. I'm not anyway involved in the SU (apart from being a student i guess) but I don't like this page and how it says to support her without being told why we should. I actually don't know what happened and I think it's wrong that they're telling us to support her without telling us what has happened or why we should. Innocent until proven guilty but a fair trial is not a one-sided campaign. By setting up this group, telling people to support her, they are trying to influence people's votes. Is that fair? Nobody has come with an anti-page nor has anyone released the details as to what has happened which seems quite odd to me.

banquo

To clarify:

It's unfair to suggest that the FaceBook group members are there to shout abuse, nobody except them know what their plans are for tomorrow (including me, I've an exam at 2pm!)

And I think that they haven't listed the details of why to support Liz as Welfare Officer is because they, like us (including myself) don't have all the facts yet. We don't know anything solid until tomorrow. I think it's best to leave speculation of the details until UC tomorrow (at noon, in The Venue, in case I haven't mentioned )

Kiwi_knock

Really regret not being a class rep now, would love to be at the Council tomorrow. Will the full details of what happens tomorrow be released to the student body or will it be contained within the Council. It should be released as it is a decision that affects us all. Good luck with everyone going tomorrow, will be a hard decision.

Michellenman

You can still go to it (the venue at 12 is it Rob? :P) you just don't have a vote in anything while there.

CnaG

I'll try keep minutes tomorrow, and post them... well, I was going to say on facebook, but I can post them here maybe. And I'll try get both sides of the story. Fairly.

Could we stop speculating now? Please nicely?

Rozabeez

Right guys, before the rumours start spreading like wildfire.. this thread is being locked until after the council tomorrow.

funky penguin

Phew....I've also deleted some posts, just so no unnecessary fire is spread.

Honestly....you'd think you people don't have exams to be studying for.....

Rozabeez

Keep it clean!

funky penguin

Sitting in the engineer's booth atm.

Voting is currently taking place. Secret Ballot.

Cool_CM

So seeing now as people are voting on it, what`s the official reason for the emergency meeting. Not hearsay, but the actual reasons put forward at the meeting on why she should be removed from office.

funky penguin

Officially, a MOTION of no confidence.

funky penguin

Motion dropped.

Toasty113

So Liz shall be staying in office then?

banquo

Yes she will.

Cool_CM

funky penguin wrote: »

Officially, a MOTION of no confidence.

I know that, I meant was it political of personal? As in could all of this have been sorted out behind closed doors between individuals as opposed to dragging it to union council? Or was it something that actually merited being removed from office?

K4t

Only 4 votes off the quota hmmm I'd say she'll be considering her options about next year....

Toasty113

I wouldn't really take the number of votes into account, given there where (I believe) people missing due to the fact that there where exams on, and that this is a study week and people may not have been able to make it in in time.

Also, have to say I'm glad shes staying in. I may not have voted for her but I do think shes a nice person, and that she has done a good job.

Tristram

and the motion of no confidence was based on... ?

Michellenman

It unfair to hold the vote when all members can't be there due to exams.

Tronomatic

She wasn't fulfilling her duties. Do you need any other reason to call for a vote of no confidence??

Toasty113

Tronomatic wrote: »

She wasn't fulfilling her duties. Do you need any other reason to call for a vote of no confidence??

Which duties was she failing to fulfill? Because frankly I've heard nothing about his whole thing other than rumors and personal opinions. Seems like it was all a farce to be honest

Cool_CM

Tronomatic wrote: »

She wasn't fulfilling her duties. Do you need any other reason to call for a vote of no confidence??

Another generalisation.
Let me rephrase: How, specifically, was she not fulfilling her duties? What examples of this were provided at the meeting?
Was there any need for this meeting at all?

Tristram

Toasty113 wrote: »

Which duties was she failing to fulfill?

Very simple question which should be answered.

Tronomatic

I understand how annoying this whole thing has been for someone who doesn't know what on earth is going on, and why these accusations have been flying about. I just don't think that this is the place (or if there is any place really) that's appropriate to talk about what an individual has done wrong. For the protection of that person and the people discussing the topic. In saying that I shouldn't have come on at all, but sometimes emotions get the better of you.

I can tell you that it was waranted, and that if you look at the constitution you will see what her duties are and that she most certainly did not fill and paid a complete disregard for some but not all of them.

mickstupp

Tronomatic wrote: »

I can tell you that it was waranted, and that if you look at the constitution you will see what her duties are and that she most certainly did not fill and paid a complete disregard for some but not all of them.

Surely if it was really warranted, it would've passed?

TouchingVirus

Tronomatic wrote: »

I understand how annoying this whole thing has been for someone who doesn't know what on earth is going on, and why these accusations have been flying about. I just don't think that this is the place (or if there is any place really) that's appropriate to talk about what an individual has done wrong. For the protection of that person and the people discussing the topic. In saying that I shouldn't have come on at all, but sometimes emotions get the better of you.

I can tell you that it was waranted, and that if you look at the constitution you will see what her duties are and that she most certainly did not fill and paid a complete disregard for some but not all of them.

You expected people to vote when they didn't know what they were voting on? Or is this one of the things where if you're running in the rep circles you'd know what she is supposed to have done?

There are absolutely no reasons to vote no confidence in Liz, given that you're not telling students the things you're basing the no-confidence on. You didn't highlight the specific duties she isn't fulfilling, nor what she's alleged to have done that proves she isn't fulfilling them.

It's a farce, and if I were a student & class rep I would have voted against, regardless of who it was the no confidence motion was for. You need to inform your voters on why the motion was called, what duties she was failing in, why she failed and let them make an informed decision.

This cloaks and daggers bull**** is annoying, and if anybody was ousted in a manner like this it most certainly wouldn't be the will of the students IMO. Call another motion in late September if it's warranted, inform your voters, inform the students (posters or whatever), advertise the UC and give notice, then see if it's passed.

Isn't there some minimum notification for an emergency UC? I doubt 1 day is enough

Cool_CM

Tronomatic wrote: »

I understand how annoying this whole thing has been for someone who doesn't know what on earth is going on, and why these accusations have been flying about. I just don't think that this is the place (or if there is any place really) that's appropriate to talk about what an individual has done wrong. For the protection of that person and the people discussing the topic. In saying that I shouldn't have come on at all, but sometimes emotions get the better of you.

I can tell you that it was waranted, and that if you look at the constitution you will see what her duties are and that she most certainly did not fill and paid a complete disregard for some but not all of them.

So it is grand to call a meeting for a vote of no confidence in somebody, which suggests to the outsider that they have done something wrong and then not give actual reasons for doing it? Bit of a cop out tbh.
Seems like nobody really knows