GSU Provost Vote???

retrocubist

I'm relatively new here so not sure how cool it is to get into big pseudo-political college discussions on this board but I had a bit of a chat with a friend about something over the weekend that irked me a bit so wanted to see what other people thought about it...

So the Trinity Provost election is around 4 weeks away and I was chatting to a friend who seems to know what's going on with all that SU stuff about who was likely to win and all that. I asked if all of the student votes would be going to Colm Kearny, who won the student vote in February but he told me that only half of them would be as the GSU have 4 votes and the scholars have another one. So, I guessed that the GSU would be having a vote on this, like the SU did. (I'm a PG student so thought it would be cool to see how the campaign for these votes played out.) I went searching and then found this e-mail from the GSU President, which I must have missed when it came in first (that's my problem, I know, but sometimes circulars get ignored in the midst of lots of e-mails from supervisors and stuff). Here's the bit about the elections:

GSU President wrote:

The Graduate Students’ Union: Procedure for 2011 Provostial Elections.

The election for provost happens once every ten years. The campaign for
the 2011 election runs from 7th February until the Election Day 2nd April.
The GSU feels it is important to engage with candidates and students
throughout the whole of this period.

Postgraduate students have already had an opportunity to participate in
the provostial election process, through casting a vote during the SU
elections (February 14th until February 17th). Postgrads were informed
about this by the GSU’s weekly email. In addition to this the GSU holds 4
votes in the election which are independent from those of the SU. This
document outlines the process by which postgrads can inform the decision
making process as to how the GSU will use these votes.

The GSU shall have four votes through its members who sit on Board and
Council. These members include the two sabbatical officers and two faculty
officers, all of whom are members of the GSU Executive. The GSU will
decide how it will cast these votes through a means of identifying which
provostial candidate will best represent postgraduate students, provide
them with resources and services to fulfil their academic and educational
needs, ensure their welfare is looked after and write and implement
policies which reflect the requirements of those studying at a
postgraduate level.

The GSU will gather student feedback, questions, concerns and suggestions
through multiple methods to ensure that all postgraduate students have the
opportunity to contribute the discussion. These methods are as follows: An
email facility, faculty caucuses and hustings. These methods will allow
for communication between postgraduate students, the GSU and the
provostial candidates. The GSU will make itself available to meet with
individual provostial candidates who wish to consult on postgraduate
issues.


The Graduate Students’ Union Executive consists of 12 members in total;
President, Vice-President, 3 Faculty Officers, 3 Faculty Representatives,
Treasurer, Events Officer, Chair-person and the Returning Officer. The
Executive will meet and after consideration of the information and
feedback gathered through the methods outlined above, the members will
vote on which candidate they feel would be the most suitable provost in
the interests of postgraduate students. The candidate chosen by the
Executive will then be afforded full support by the GSU when they cast
their 4 votes at the provostial elections.


*Email Facility: Emails from students with the subject heading; Provost
Appointment can be sent to President@gsu.tcd.ie with queries, suggestions
and opinions.

*Faculty Caucus: Each Faculty’s Officer and Representative will host an
open discussion in the Common Room, House 7 where all students from that
particular faculty can come and raise issues/concerns they have with other
students and their Faculty Officer and Representative. Students will be
notified about the dates/times of each caucus through the Presidents
weekly email and the GSU Facebook page.

*Hustings: on March 22nd 2011 the Provostial Candidates are invited to
speak to postgraduate students in the Synge Theatre, Arts Building at 7pm.
Postgraduate students are invited to ask questions and highlight issues
directly with the candidates.

Sorry to have posted such a long piece but I don't like to be seen to have misquoted anyone. I read that and I kinda thought, "What the F*ck?!"

The general vibe I got was: You already got to vote in the SU vote so we're not going to have a vote, but even though we recognise that that was your vote, we're not going to recognise the result. So, instead of asking you to democratically make your choice, we're going to sort of listen to what you think and then decide in-house who to vote for. To add to this, I haven't heard about any caucuses yet and it's not exactly clear if this 'e-mail facility' is a voting thing or if they'll just take preferences on board. It all kinda seems very patronising and as if they don't believe that Postgrads understand how to vote on these things. I am now in my 6th year in Trinity and I know that the GSU President is in her second (only one year as a student) so I think my view is pretty relevant.

After ranting about this all for a while, I mentioned it to someone who used to be involved with the GSU whose response was 'Of course they don't want a vote, half the GSU exec is on the campaign team of one of the candidates. They're just setting it up so that they'll all be able to vote for him and say that they "consulted" the students.' It turns out that the GSU pres and VP from the last two years are still on the GSU exec and are BOTH on the campaign team for Patrick Prendergast, the old Vice Provost. And apparently about 2 or 3 others on the committee, including the current officers, are 'unofficially' on his campaign. Again, WTF?!!!

I've generally avoided college politics for the 5 and a half years I've been in TCD, and this seems like the best justification for that stance. This is such corrupt, insider bullsh*t. This is the first thing that I've really been curious about recently as I know I'll be in Trinity for around another 3-4 years and hope that I'll be able to work here some day and it's a bit annoying that I won't be given a vote, while someone who's supposed to represent my best interest is completely biased even before the "process" kicks off.

Tried not to have too much of a rant here, but it is all quite disheartening. Has anyone else heard about all this? Any other Postgrads who are a bit peeved by this? I really don't get why we can't just have a vote. After 6 years, and after paying fairly substantial fees for the past couple of year, some of which funds that little GSU clique, I think I deserve it.

EuropeanSon

Don't worry, Prendergast won't get in. He seemed incredibly inept at the Provostial candidates debate a few weeks back. I know that's not exactly your point, but it's some consolation.

As regards your main point, yeah, SU (and presumably GSU too) hacks are a bunch of hypocritical cliquish irritants. Your best defence is apathy.

retrocubist

Ah yeah, I know I'm probably just saying what everyone here already thinks, and may seem a bit naive to be shocked at a student organisation having an agenda, but it's just a bit.... disappointing.

Oh and I should add that it's not that I don't want Prendergast to get in. I'm not a huge fan of his but I'm not particularly married to voting for any candidate at this point. However, if it is true that his campaign team have tried to sew up the GSU vote, it would definitely make me think twice about trusting him. Also, he had that weird e-mail to PG students about the Dean of Students backing him, but not really backing him.

Ah well...

tenandtracer

retrocubist wrote: »

Dean of Students backing him, but not really backing him.

Ah well...

College officers are not allowed to show their support in their capacity as a college officer, if this is true report it to the Registrar

Ahoyhoy

That sounds right to me. We keep getting e-mails off him addressing what have obviously been complaints about the behaviour of the candidates. You should complain to him about it, maybe he'll have a word with the GSU.

ElectroTrinity

Ahoyhoy wrote: »

That sounds right to me. We keep getting e-mails off him addressing what have obviously been complaints about the behaviour of the candidates. You should complain to him about it, maybe he'll have a word with the GSU.

Im not getting those emails - they from Barkoff? Whats he saying ? <goes checks spam filter to see what other college mail is clogging it>

Why are the GSU not holding a vote? It would seem to me that they would then be much better "empowered" and would be able to say they have a mandate. As it stands there is no guarantee whatsoever that they can, even with the best wil in the world, accurately gauge the mood of the postgraduate body. All the candidates say nice things about the postgrads - lets see what the postgrads say about them?

bradyle

Thats what the email was about...that the dean of students was backing him but not in his official role as dean of students but just as himself.

ElectroTrinity

bradyle wrote: »

Thats what the email was about...that the dean of students was backing him but not in his official role as dean of students but just as himself.

Thats a bit....jesuitical (no offense). Anyhow, back to the first poster. Why are the GSU not holding a vote? How can they pretend to be able to get the pulse of people without a vote? And if they do it on this, what on earth is stopping them from doing similar in other issues?
Maybe some GSU head can explain...?

Back to the lab - fun break over.

goingnowhere

I'd suggest you read this http://www.gsu.tcd.ie/files/GSU%20Constitution-1-AGM-2007.pdf and figure out what the options are.

There doesn't appear to be any scope for a referendum so beloved by the SU, I could be wrong

Yalla

I wish I was surprised by the GSU selection of Prendergast, but the entire process has been disappointing. What would have been the better option, if they decided not to hold a postgraduate vote, would have been for those actively working on campaigns to formally step down from their roles on the executive. Not much to say now though now that their process is over now. Roll on the 2nd!
GSU PROVOST VOTE RESULTS: 1. Paddy Pendergast 2. Colm Kearney 3. Jane Ohlmeyer 4. Des Fitsgerald 5. John Boland [sic]

TrollHammaren

So, Patrick Prendergast is the next Provost, it seems. Who else thinks this is an absolute disgrace?

The University Times wrote the most arse-licking article I've ever seen about him.

gearoidof

He's a good lecturer, is affable, and will probably do a good job?

Why is it an absolute disgrace that the best guy won?

The GSU votes don't count for that much.

TrollHammaren

gearoidof wrote: »

He's a good lecturer, is affable, and will probably do a good job?

Why is it an absolute disgrace that the best guy won?

The GSU votes don't count for that much.

Because I don't believe he was the best guy; the whole Provostial voting fiasco was an absolute joke. Certain candidates were backed by people in official positions, the Student Union was the only body I know of to hold a referendum, and certain candidates essentially spammed TCD email inboxes.

I genuinely cannot see a single thing Prendergast could offer - I'm sure he's a "nice guy", but he was by no means the best man for the job.

I was one of the few to actually read carefully through all the candidates' manifestos and it seems Jane Olmheyer and John Boland were the only candidates, in my opinion, who had anything to offer.

Jane Olmheyer seemed to be the only one to display a genuine interest in students and staff, rather than paying lip-service, and John Boland seemed to be the only one who had any clue about the work done by clubs, societies, and organisations in the college.

Anyway, this isn't about who I think should have been elected, it's about how the election was dealt with. It certainly didn't help that considerably less attention went to the Provost elections than to the less important SU elections.

aas

TrollHammaren wrote: »

Because I don't believe he was the best guy; the whole Provostial voting fiasco was an absolute joke. Certain candidates were backed by people in official positions, the Student Union was the only body I know of to hold a referendum, and certain candidates essentially spammed TCD email inboxes.

I genuinely cannot see a single thing Prendergast could offer - I'm sure he's a "nice guy", but he was by no means the best man for the job.

I was one of the few to actually read carefully through all the candidates' manifestos and it seems Jane Olmheyer and John Boland were the only candidates, in my opinion, who had anything to offer.

Jane Olmheyer seemed to be the only one to display a genuine interest in students and staff, rather than paying lip-service, and John Boland seemed to be the only one who had any clue about the work done by clubs, societies, and organisations in the college.

Anyway, this isn't about who I think should have been elected, it's about how the election was dealt with. It certainly didn't help that considerably less attention went to the Provost elections than to the less important SU elections.

I'm sorry that the academics employed by TCD that actually have some idea of what's going on disagreed with you?

TrollHammaren

aas wrote: »

I'm sorry that the academics employed by TCD that actually have some idea of what's going on disagreed with you?

Try reading my post properly before replying to it, yeah? Cheers.

gearoidof

I also read the manifestos, would you believe, and I agreed with prendergast's policies.

I thought Jane Ohlmeyer was a good candidate too, but in the end of the day, the majority of staff thought she wasn't as good a candidate as he was.

TrollHammaren

gearoidof wrote: »

I also read the manifestos, would you believe, and I agreed with prendergast's policies.

I thought Jane Ohlmeyer was a good candidate too, but in the end of the day, the majority of staff thought she wasn't as good a candidate as he was.

I don't deny that some of the people who read his policies voted for him, my problem is with how the election was handled. If he had been voted in by an election process that wasn't handled badly I would have been a bit peeved that Ohlmeyer didn't get it, but I would have accepted it as a fair win. My problem is that the process that saw him elected was a joke, particularly with the GSU behaving the way they did.

Jesus, you know something's up when the SU is the only group doing something properly

gearoidof

The GSU account for a small proportion of the electorate, and while their behaviour is poor, I haven't heard of anything odd going on beside that.

TrollHammaren

gearoidof wrote: »

The GSU account for a small proportion of the electorate, and while their behaviour is poor, I haven't heard of anything odd going on beside that.

There was the vocal backing of some candidates by people in highly official capacities, and there was the absolute spamming by some candidates that was allowed to occur.

Then, of course, as was stated earlier, there was the fact that it was given significantly lees attention than was given to the SU elections.

gearoidof

1) An official apology was sent out for that one.
2) Candidates only hurt their own campaign by sending out frivilous emails.

3) The student populace is right to give more attention to the SU election than the provost election. They have more of a say in the SU election and they're represented by the SU in the college.
By the same logic, it's a sham that more attention is given to local elections than the senatorial elections.

I'm not saying that this provost election thing is an examplar of the democratic process, I'm just sayign that calling it "an absolute disgrace" is pure hyperbole

TrollHammaren

gearoidof wrote: »

1) An official apology was sent out for that one.

An apology was too little too late.

gearoidof wrote: »

2) Candidates only hurt their own campaign by sending out frivilous emails.

I disagree - Prendergast and Kearney were the absolute worst offenders. Look where that got them.

gearoidof wrote: »

3) The student populace is right to give more attention to the SU election than the provost election. They have more of a say in the SU election and they're represented by the SU in the college.

I entirely disagree - the Provost is in power for ten years, the SU officers are in power for one year. The fact that the students have so little say in what the Provost does means we should make damn sure we get the right man for the job in. The SU are less likely to affect the college for at least ten years.

gearoidof wrote: »

By the same logic, it's a sham that more attention is given to local elections than the senatorial elections.

It's not comparable at all. It would slightly more appropriate to say that the situation with the Provost/SU elections is more akin to people paying more attention to the Senatorial Elections than the General Election.

gearoidof wrote: »

I'm not saying that this provost election thing is an examplar of the democratic process, I'm just sayign that calling it "an absolute disgrace" is pure hyperbole

I don't think it's a hyperbole at all - it is a disgrace that the election of the head of the most "prestigious" universtiy in Ireland, who is elected for a 10-year term, could be handled so badly.



It seems we're both up very late doing assignments

aas

TrollHammaren wrote: »

An apology was too little too late.



I disagree - Prendergast and Kearney were the absolute worst offenders. Look where that got them.



I entirely disagree - the Provost is in power for ten years, the SU officers are in power for one year. The fact that the students have so little say in what the Provost does means we should make damn sure we get the right man for the job in. The SU are less likely to affect the college for at least ten years.



It's not comparable at all. It would slightly more appropriate to say that the situation with the Provost/SU elections is more akin to people paying more attention to the Senatorial Elections than the General Election.



I don't think it's a hyperbole at all - it is a disgrace that the election of the head of the most "prestigious" universtiy in Ireland, who is elected for a 10-year term, could be handled so badly.



It seems we're both up very late doing assignments

But all you're seeing is the campaign for the student vote, which comprises 1% of the total vote. No one cares about it. In the campaign for the other 99% each candidate meets with as many academics as possible and personally takes on board all their opinions on how the college is doing.

gearoidof

Local elections: electing hacks who have no real power
SU elections: electing hacks who have no real power

Provost: electing someone where a small amount of people decide, and who has a good deal of power
Senate: electing someone where a small amount of people decide who wins, and who has a good deal of power.

1) What else can he do...
2) Prendergast won despite this, really
3) Students count for less than 1% of the vote, which means our say is pretty negligable, I'm not saying no interest should be put into it, but at the end of the day, the SU election is the more noteworthy event.

I just don't see how it was handled badly? Mistakes, when made, were dealt with properly according to the rules. There was no ballot stuffing etc.

(late assignments, yup :P)

trinitycat

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72493645#post72493645