New Constitution

declan06

So, what do we think of the new constitution?
Link: http://issuu.com/maynoothsu/docs/2011_constitution_referendum_draft
Notes: http://aengusmaynooth.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/a-new-better-union/

Seren_

Just read it there. I think the new exec make up is good, liking the idea of faculty reps. All in all I'm quite happy with it and will be voting for it to be adopted next week.

We need to get the word out about the referendum though, because a lot of people don't know that there was a new constitution being written, let alone that there's a vote next week. Lots of bright posters!!

Feathers

Just gave it a quick read, but three things stood out:

• The constitution comes into effect on the day the RO deems it to pass, not the date at which the time for appeals would have lapsed. So the constitution will come into effect before anyone can appeal the decision (This one is just nit-picking)
• Any changes to the constitution require a 'quorate' referendum, but what figure comprimes quorum isn't defined in the document (as far as I can see).
• If quorum is 50% + 1, which could be seen as the normal figure applied, it seems like there will never be further changes made to the constitution.

In 2010, the Communications Office maintained there were over 8,000 students in the college. So since the new constitution maintains that all students (full- or part-time, regardless of paying capitation) are members - that would be 4,001 students that would need to turn out for a valid referendum. Probably more, since the figure has no doubt risen again since then.

When was the last time over 4,000 students turned out for any vote of the SU?

A long time gone from Maynooth, but bored in work - sorry!

leopoldbloom

Feathers wrote: »

Just gave it a quick read, but three things stood out:

• The constitution comes into effect on the day the RO deems it to pass, not the date at which the time for appeals would have lapsed. So the constitution will come into effect before anyone can appeal the decision (This one is just nit-picking)
• Any changes to the constitution require a 'quorate' referendum, but what figure comprimes quorum isn't defined in the document (as far as I can see).
• If quorum is 50% + 1, which could be seen as the normal figure applied, it seems like there will never be further changes made to the constitution.

In 2010, the Communications Office maintained there were over 8,000 students in the college. So since the new constitution maintains that all students (full- or part-time, regardless of paying capitation) are members - that would be 4,001 students that would need to turn out for a valid referendum. Probably more, since the figure has no doubt risen again since then.

When was the last time over 4,000 students turned out for any vote of the SU?

A long time gone from Maynooth, but bored in work - sorry!

Article 6.3.1 "The quorum for a referendum shall be 15% of the membership."


AE

Feathers

Ah!

Fair enough so. As I said, it was a quick read.

Would've been better if it was a sneaky ploy to copperfasten the new constitution though! :P

CnaG

I had a read of it, out of interest more than anything. Haven't read Aengus's note yet though.

The biggest changes in the consitution, as already observed, are in the make-up of the executive. The addition of the new clubs, socs and development Sabbat officer and the introduction of faculty reps are probably good developments.

Article 11 clears up a lot. I particuarly like the addition of 11.6 - it was quite ridiculous that an exec officer could previously be impeached only to resume a position on the exec in the next term of office.

I don't like Schedule 1.4.5 so much (p. 24). I can't see any reason why a union council would need to be held in camera. I could only see that particular procedural motion being abused. I don't remember it being in the old consititution either. That said, it's been a while since I read it. Any chance of a link to the old one for a side-by-side comparison?

Feathers

CnaG wrote: »

I don't like Schedule 1.4.5 so much (p. 24). I can't see any reason why a union council would need to be held in camera. I could only see that particular procedural motion being abused. I don't remember it being in the old consititution either. That said, it's been a while since I read it.

That's always been there alright. Or at least, it was in the 2001 version of the constitution. Only time I could see a use for it is if you were planning on doing a sit-in in an office & wanted some staff members to leave so you could plan it

Can't really see it being abused, in that - how often do you get people who don't need to be there showing up? & if they do, would anyone actually know if they were a class rep or not?

banquo

Bah, it seems I accidentally removed the link to the old constitution during the web hosting upgrade. First thing Monday.

irish_goat

From seeing Aengus' presentation on it the new constitution looks pretty sweet. Other than the make up of the executive it looks to be mainly about getting things in order within the SU and nothing to get too worked up over.

Vote yes.

CnaG

Should be a SO article by yours truly up shortly about the new constitution. Pity there's no real no campaign, it could have been interesting

cathaldonnelly

A serious issue i had with the last constitution was that international students, even those signed up for an entire academic year weren't members of the SU meaning they had no voting power in SU elections.
From what i understand those signed up for an entire academic year, in the new constitution do have a vote (yay).

So far so good. Not urging anyone to vote in favour of or against it however i would stress the importance of voting in general. I'll most likely vote yes

CnaG

The new SU Constitution: what you need to know.

*WARNING* It's quite long...

CnaG

CnaG wrote: »

The new SU Constitution: what you need to know.

*WARNING* It's quite long...

Link isn't working.

Daemos

I believe this is what he was trying to link to

CnaG

It was, thanks

Also, it's "she"

CnaG

I hear quorum wasn't reached? **** buzz... What happened?

declan06

CnaG wrote: »

I hear quorum wasn't reached? **** buzz... What happened?

Yes, wasn't reached. needed 200 more votes
Emergency UC tomorrow night

funky penguin

Quorum wasn't reached, 11%, needed 15%.

I'll let Aengus, Rob or Declan fill in the details.

Nasty thing to have happen, especially since it was 93% in favour of Yes. Hopefully there'll be a better turn out for the next one.

Daemos

If you don't mind me saying, I don't think it was very well advertised. Hell I wouldn't even have cared about it if it wasn't for this thread.

I think the problems were:
- There wasn't enough time to promote it. We had a rep. come into our class the same day as the vote, surely doing it days ago would have been better so people would have time to decide on it. Was there any reason why the vote had to be yesterday? I think with more notice it would have had a much better turn-out
- It clashed with the march on Fine Gael, but I don't know how many actually went to that
- It wasn't made very clear that it needed so many votes. I didn't even know until Rob said so on this thread

So yeah, I hope a solution is reached because from what I can see there's no reason for the changes not to be brought in

declan06

Daemos wrote: »

If you don't mind me saying, I don't think it was very well advertised. Hell I wouldn't even have cared about it if it wasn't for this thread.

I think the problems were:
- There wasn't enough time to promote it. We had a rep. come into our class the same day as the vote, surely doing it days ago would have been better so people would have time to decide on it. Was there any reason why the vote had to be yesterday? I think with more notice it would have had a much better turn-out
- It clashed with the march on Fine Gael, but I don't know how many actually went to that
- It wasn't made very clear that it needed so many votes. I didn't even know until Rob said so on this thread

So yeah, I hope a solution is reached because from what I can see there's no reason for the changes not to be brought in

Vary good points, it's looking like it will be on the same day as the sabat elections

We were trying to have it passed before nominations opened for redundant positions.

Wednesday was a very busy day with lots happening in the arts block. It was unfortunate the referendum didn't get quorum, since so many students voted in favour of it.

Kinda seen this coming tbh, asked my friends what they voted and they didn't know there was a constitution change at all. More advertising, the only advertising I seen was about 20 posters all in the same place outside Physics Hall notice board. pity there wasn't more done, around 300 in my Biology class, someone could have come in and talked to us before a lecture maybe? Would've made more awareness than handing out the little leaflets with a whole load of information that not many people are going to read.

Baile an Locha

Overheard people who thought that the Pro-Life brigade outside the arts block were in some way connected to the referendum. Doesn't make much sense but if you were fairly oblivious to the referendum and saw a pro-life group with plastic foetuses near the building where the voting was taking place, you could reach that conclusion. Just an observation.

ash xxx

People should really read their emails

daffodil14

Anyone I talked to yesterday hadn't a clue what it was about nor that the referendum was taking place. I agree with ash people should really read their emails.

Shay09

I have to say i myself was put of voting until the Pro life group moved on. I have been talking to loads of friends who didn't vote just because they didnt want to walk past the pro life group, with their horrible images. Most St PAts students were afraid to be seen near the group which was spear headed by a St Pats student. If it wasn't for this senseless protest the referendum would have past! The people/groups involved should be punished. And all the non-NUIM students involved, i.e. single honours theology students and senior seminarians, should be banned of the North campus!

Kiwi_knock

Shay09 wrote: »

I have to say i myself was put of voting until the Pro life group moved on. I have been talking to loads of friends who didn't vote just because they didnt want to walk past the pro life group, with their horrible images. Most St PAts students were afraid to be seen near the group which was spear headed by a St Pats student. If it wasn't for this senseless protest the referendum would have past! The people/groups involved should be punished. And all the non-NUIM students involved, i.e. single honours theology students and senior seminarians, should be banned of the North campus!

Do not think it was a protest at all, fairly certain that was part of their campaign for Sexual Health Awareness Week. Someone from the SU can confirm this but I am nearly certain that their presence was requested by the Welfare Office. While it is a view that some students do not agree with their views, they do represent views of other students on campus so their views do deserved to be heard.
However their campaign on Wednesday was nothing short of bizarre though, Was fairly off putting and going to attract more anger than support.
And for banning them from the North Campus that is ridiculous, first off most of them have to take classes in Philosophy which usually take place on the North Campus. It would be unfairly preventing students from completing their degree based on their views however misguided you view them as.

banquo

It's complicated, but I'll try and get a straight answer for you asap.

Anyway, the future trumps the past any day. I'll have the details about our next steps soon.

Aldebaran

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Do not think it was a protest at all, fairly certain that was part of their campaign for Sexual Health Awareness Week. Someone from the SU can confirm this but I am nearly certain that their presence was requested by the Welfare Office. While it is a view that some students do not agree with their views, they do represent views of other students on campus so their views do deserved to be heard.
However their campaign on Wednesday was nothing short of bizarre though, Was fairly off putting and going to attract more anger than support.
And for banning them from the North Campus that is ridiculous, first off most of them have to take classes in Philosophy which usually take place on the North Campus. It would be unfairly preventing students from completing their degree based on their views however misguided you view them as.

I just assumed they were protesting against the fact that there were people inside the Arts Block giving out info on the morning after pill.

declan06

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Do not think it was a protest at all, fairly certain that was part of their campaign for Sexual Health Awareness Week. Someone from the SU can confirm this but I am nearly certain that their presence was requested by the Welfare Office. While it is a view that some students do not agree with their views, they do represent views of other students on campus so their views do deserved to be heard.
However their campaign on Wednesday was nothing short of bizarre though, Was fairly off putting and going to attract more anger than support.
And for banning them from the North Campus that is ridiculous, first off most of them have to take classes in Philosophy which usually take place on the North Campus. It would be unfairly preventing students from completing their degree based on their views however misguided you view them as.

The protesters were nothing to do with SHAG week or the SU.

If anyone wishes to make a complaint about any issue they may email any member of the Executive.

Executive 10/11

President: Aengus Ó'Maoláin president@nuimsu.com
VP Welfare & Edu: Elizabeth Murray vicepresident@nuimsu.com
VP Comms & Dev: Robert Munnelly communications@nuimsu.com
Finance Officer: Declan Meenagh finance@nuimsu.com
Ents Officer: Pat Byrne ents@nuimsu.com
Oifigeach na Gaeilge: Caoimhghín Ó'Caoláin gaeilge@nuimsu.com
Clubs Officer: Kyle O'Regan clubs@nuimsu.com
Societies Officer: Sinéad Mawe societies@nuimsu.com
St.Pat's Rep: Mícheál Mac Aoidh stpats@nuimsu.com
1st Year Rep: Ruaidhrí Boland firstyear@nuimsu.com
Postgrad Rep: Robert Dixon postgrad@nuimsu.com

Kiwi_knock

declan06 wrote: »

The protesters were nothing to do with SHAG week or the SU.

Ah sorry my mistake then, nearly certain I saw them on a list of events for Sexual Health Awareness week on FB. They definitely deserved to be dealt with then. Can not go as far as banning the students but maybe deratifying pro life society is the way forward. Would be quite worried that the organisers of this protest and are heavily involved with other societies on campus so future protests and campaigns on campus might be held by them instead.
Once again apologies for connecting the SU with the protest.

declan06

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

Ah sorry my mistake then, nearly certain I saw them on a list of events for Sexual Health Awareness week on FB. They definitely deserved to be dealt with then. Can not go as far as banning the students but maybe deratifying pro life society is the way forward. Would be quite worried that the organisers of this protest and are heavily involved with other societies on campus so future protests and campaigns on campus might be held by them instead.
Once again apologies for connecting the SU with the protest.

No worries, there was a pro life stand in the arts block the day before which was part of the week, but just a stand, no protesters.

Shay09

As i sadi in my earlier post "Senior seminarians". Who are not NUIM students they only take classes in Theology, there degree is backed solely by the pontificate. And yes these people share a view that others agree with. I was once a comittee member on pro life in Maynooth. I personally think that the images and tactics employed by these people was distasteful and harmful. I have also heard word that 'youth defense' has played a role in this aswell as sending support. This group is already banneg=d of campus for homophobic slurs aswell as spreading lies about USI affiliations. They should have been dealt with better and all non-students should have been asked to leave campus!

westdub15

ye nobody knowing or caring about a new constitution is clearly the fault of those damn seminarians that may have been there!!

ash xxx

Well it certainly put a hell of a lot of people off :mad:

Wendero

Deratifying the prolife society? As in, banning it?

Seriously calm down. If you can't vote because there are some people handing out prolife information there, then don't vote. The Prolife society never intended to disturb the voting or anything. And, we have nothing to do with the leaflets.

We're here, and we're here to stay. You may find it uncomfortable, but we are not going away. We have the same right to give information as everyone else.

And as for that British abortion clinic... everything in that leaflet was true. And that goes for a lot of prochoice groups.

Let's face it: If people don't vote, it's probably because they, like the average student, are more interested in partying, slacking and shopping than... well, constitutions. It's not the prolife society's fault, or any other society's fault.

Shay09

Well we'll see what happens. I have no problem with the pro life message. However the images used were horrific. And i encourage anyone who was ut of by these kind of actics, or anyone a=offended or unable to vote, to complain to your class rep or to a Union sabat. They can take your view to union council. Were hopefully the problem will be dealt with properly!

Wendero

You should see the tactics we use in Sweden. They are brutal - the Prolife society in NUIM is actually quite soft. That's mainly because 1) Ireland is already banning abortion, so we are "playing defense", as opposed to Sweden where we are on the offense and 2) we're kind of nice people who doesn't want to hurt anyone

What's all these pictures they talk about? I missed one meeting so I didn't know anything about it, although I did bump into another member and we had a chat.

Jimmy Iovine

Wendero wrote: »

Let's face it: If people don't vote, it's probably because they, like the average student, are more interested in partying, slacking and shopping than... well, constitutions. It's not the prolife society's fault, or any other society's fault.

Yea cause that's the reason alright. I honestly saw only a few posters up and I check my emails the whole time and was caught by surprise when I read that it was on the other day. I was expecting the voting to be next week after briefly skimming through this thread a few days ago.

The average student I think you will find more than likely goes out and enjoys themselves whilst also putting the necessary work to do well in college. To say that there is "probably" a link between being interested in "partying, slacking and shopping" and not voting is as pointless and irrelevant as saying that students were afraid to vote because they were put off by the demonstrations of a society.

I honestly think that the reason there was so little interest in voting for the Constitution is because, and this will sound very simplistic, it's not a person. Some people may not even have known that there was a need to even vote for a new one. I wouldn't have were it not for this thread and I certainly don't go around with my head stuck in the sand. We saw last year the whole campus got involved in the SU Election. People who I haven't heard even mention one thing about the current government or upcoming election were transfixed, changing votes every few days after hearing about another potential candidate for a position.

Hopefully it passes the next time around but it shouldn't be blamed on a pro life society or on the "average alcoholic student". That's too much of a get-out clause, shifting blame onto the voters

ash xxx

Wendero wrote: »

Deratifying the prolife society? As in, banning it?

Seriously calm down. If you can't vote because there are some people handing out prolife information there, then don't vote. The Prolife society never intended to disturb the voting or anything. And, we have nothing to do with the leaflets.

We're here, and we're here to stay. You may find it uncomfortable, but we are not going away. We have the same right to give information as everyone else.

And as for that British abortion clinic... everything in that leaflet was true. And that goes for a lot of prochoice groups.

Let's face it: If people don't vote, it's probably because they, like the average student, are more interested in partying, slacking and shopping than... well, constitutions. It's not the prolife society's fault, or any other society's fault.

Barricading the Arts Block at the two entrances and giving out information is a bit different. There was no abortion information given out if you had bothered to ask, it was information on positive options, such as contraception. Shoving horrible pictures of fetuses in peoples faces is not going to endear anyone to the Pro-Life cause and definitely attracted a lot of complaints.

I believe that Pro-Life were given their chance to voice their opinions on Tuesday with no one bothering them, Pro-Choice should have been afforded that same luxury on Wednesday.

I respect that there are differing views and people are entitled to those but to physically prevent people from getting information was downright rude and upset a lot of people.

A lot of people, myself included, believe that the Pro-Life society should be de-ratified and will do our utmost to see that that happens.

Thank you and Good-day!!

Daemos

Wendero wrote: »

What's all these pictures they talk about? I missed one meeting so I didn't know anything about it, although I did bump into another member and we had a chat.

They were set up outside the Arts block with about 12 giant posters [and I mean giant, they were bigger than the election posters] showing foetuses at different stages of development. And they were lining the doors on either side holding them up, and it was rather intimidating walking past them. Luckily I've developed selective blindness for that kind of thing.

Wendero

Just fetuses? Not aborted fetuses then? What's so horrible about that, to be honest? They're just small babies and look kind of like small babies.

Was anyone actively stopped from walking past the prolifers and vote? I have been participating in a lot of prolife activities myself and have never stopped anyone from walking past me when I've handed out leaflets and stuff.

And of course, the reason isn't only that a lot of students simply don't care about these things, it's also about the information not being there. But trying to blame the prolife society is scapegoating. The campaign was worthless, just admit that and stop blaming us for all the university's ill.

ash xxx

The campaign was not worthless, jees, if you had of read the proposed changes, you would see that its much much better for Clubs & Socities, and yes thats right, Pro-life are a society, so you've kinda shot yourselves in the foot there.

The people outside and inside the Arts block were agressive, end of. I just dont understand why Pro-life wouldn't let the Pro-Choice side give out their information, just like Pro-Life did the day before. They did not have any abortion information, so what the hell are you giving out about??

Shay09

This isn't scapegoating. The pro life soc acted completely out of order. They disrupted the running of the university and deserve to be punished. My compliant is already in. As i felt offended by the protesters. The pro life soc should not be allowed to express their oppinions if a pro choice group, invited by the university, is not allowed to share information. Since the new availability of the morning after pill over the counter Marie Stoppes had useful information for students that was for education purposes.

Daemos

Wendero wrote: »

Just fetuses? Not aborted fetuses then? What's so horrible about that, to be honest? They're just small babies and look kind of like small babies.

I agree with this to be honest

Was anyone actively stopped from walking past the prolifers and vote? I have been participating in a lot of prolife activities myself and have never stopped anyone from walking past me when I've handed out leaflets and stuff.

Not that I saw

And of course, the reason isn't only that a lot of students simply don't care about these things, it's also about the information not being there. But trying to blame the prolife society is scapegoating. The campaign was worthless, just admit that and stop blaming us for all the university's ill.

Perhaps, but surely you'll agree that the protest did contribute to the problems?

Wendero

We had nothing to do with the leaflets, okay? We didn't make them. And why invite a prochoice group for sexual education purposes? It's clear that it's a political strategy; talk about "softer" issues like contraceptives, win people's trust, and then later on start to talk about abortion and hope that they will be trusted in that area too.

Why not have education from a neutral organization?

I didn't see much of the protest, the only guys I saw (whom I know well) were not disturbing anyone, just standing at the entrance to the arts block or if it was JH. I think a lot of people are just trying to find excuses for not voting by saying that those nasty prolifers turned them off.

We are willing to debate any prochoicer who dares to, but a questionable organisation like Marie Stoppes has to be.... questioned.

Daemos

Wendero wrote: »

And why invite a prochoice group for sexual education purposes?

Eh, what? If the Pro-Lifers can do their bit then so can the Pro-Choicers. It's called hearing both sides of the argument.

I think a lot of people are just trying to find excuses for not voting by saying that those nasty prolifers turned them off.

I don't see anyone saying they didn't vote because of it, just people putting it forward as one reason why there was such a low turn-out

We are willing to debate any prochoicer who dares to

"Dares to"? Oh dear, another we vs. you comment. I think I have to leave this thread before I say something I'll regret.

westdub15

i walked past the protesters a few times that day and they never opened their mouths.. anyone who claims to have been 'intimidated' by them either needs to stop being so sensitive or has vested intersts

Shay09

MArie Stoppes was there with the permission of the university. If you do not agree with university policy of free speech then complain to the proper authorities. No one is saying 'nasty prolifers'. It was the method used that people feel was questionable. I have been to many prolife v prochoice debates in maynooth over the years and always the prochoice never shows up. That is because of the attitude of a small minority in Maynooth. The pro life argument would benefit allot of these people would let others have their own views. Why should people respect the prolife view if the prolifers don'[t respect other oppinions or feelings! Maries stoppes is not a questionable organisation, it was reputible enough for the University authorities.

funky penguin

Read the thread title please folks. Back on topic. If you want to discuss Pro-life Soc, make a new thread.

How so Joe

Ehm, on the topic of the new constitution, can anyone explain to me the need for faculty reps? It just seems a little pointless to me and I haven't heard anything which has convinced me they're a good idea.
but, of course, I'm always open to persuasion!

BuroniKiisu

How so Joe wrote: »

Ehm, on the topic of the new constitution, can anyone explain to me the need for faculty reps? It just seems a little pointless to me and I haven't heard anything which has convinced me they're a good idea.
but, of course, I'm always open to persuasion!

As it stands, the Finance Officer doesn't deal with the Union finances and the Ents Officer doesn't book the entertainment. Back when the college was smaller, these duties could be fulfilled by the elected part-time students, but this is no longer the case. Now these duties are tacked by the accountant and the events coordinator respectively; hired members of the Students' Union staff with experience in these fields. No offence to either Pat or Declan, who I both consider friends, but the remit of these two topical officers has been made redundant. They need to go.

The faculty rep system, which from what I can see is loosely based on the UCD Exec, is a great way to remove the unnecessary topical officers without losing the current level of student body representation on the Exec committee. In fact it technical increases the scope of representation, as as it stands it's possible for all bar one member of the Exec (St. Patrick's Rep) to just be from one faculty. So instead of having officers elected to a job and then scourging around for duties mildly relating to the title of their role (with Ents this more often then not involves just being a poster-putter-upper and an after-gig cleaner for the green room; not nearly as much craic as the job title implies), the faculty reps main duty will simply be to be a representative voice of the students of that faculty on the Exec.

As general representatives they'll also be obliged to aid in a broader range of Students' Union activity; there'll be far less room for a "that's not my job, I'm the X officer" reply (which I did hear often enough back during my time as First Year Rep). This'll more than likely encompass events co-ordination with the VPSEC and campaigns with the VP Welfare & Equality.

They'll also allow for more coordination of the Class Rep system, which still needs major improving. ~24 class reps isn't anywhere near adequate for a college of almost 8,000 students. With the faculty reps in place, they can coordinate a direct effort to improve numbers within the faculties rather than leaving it with a sabbatical officer who's more preoccupied with dueling with InDesign or trying to crack the parking conundrum.

There is one major downside though. Since the roles lack a specific remit on which to judge candidates, the elections will more than likely devolve into pure popularity contests. Fingers crossed this won't be the case, but let's not kid ourselves.

Still though, better than having pointless topical officers or a greatly reduced Exec size in my opinion.

[/SU hackism]

On another note, I'm pretty sure this is the longest post I've ever made on boards. :pac: