Proposed new DCUSU Constitution

tomar-re

So the Students Union have a new constitution being written, "again?" many of you will ask.
It does a few things but the two biggest changes to the constitution is the removal of the commission of arbitration and the changing of the number of class reps to two each per class.

The 1st change removes the ability for anyone to challenge the presidents interpretation of the constitution. If the president misreads the constitution or decides to give themselves a retro-active pay increase nobody can challenge this decision.
There needs to be some level of oversight to the actions of the union, in every other union there is some similar body who can be asked to review decisions constitutionality. Arbitration also acts as a means to appeal decisions that have been made against individuals by the union. So the only way to mount a challenge to the union is to go down the lines of legal action(as mentioned by some at union council) which is too expensive for most students and freezes most people out of any sort of appeal.

The 2nd issue the number of class reps to be awarded to each class is to be set at 2 regardless of class size. The reasons given are that there isn't enough work for more then 2 class reps in any class and that not enough people are turning up for union council.
This doesn't fix anything with class rep attendance or people being bad class reps it just means that quorum is easier to get for union council.
If the union is all about fairness and equal representation as it says in the aims then why does a class of 5 get the same votes as a class of 250? Union council is the main arbiter of union policy, as most of the decisions are made there, why should classes not have a fair opportunity to be represented there?

Garseys

Just to address your first point. No the president and Union Executive can be challenged under the new constitution, instead of the power of the commission of arbitration being given to a select few individuals. CRC (Class Rep Council) Now has that power.

XPS

tomar-re wrote: »

So the Students Union have a new constitution being written, "again?" many of you will ask.
It does a few things but the two biggest changes to the constitution is the removal of the commission of arbitration and the changing of the number of class reps to two each per class.

The 1st change removes the ability for anyone to challenge the presidents interpretation of the constitution. If the president misreads the constitution or decides to give themselves a retro-active pay increase nobody can challenge this decision.
There needs to be some level of oversight to the actions of the union, in every other union there is some similar body who can be asked to review decisions constitutionality. Arbitration also acts as a means to appeal decisions that have been made against individuals by the union. So the only way to mount a challenge to the union is to go down the lines of legal action(as mentioned by some at union council) which is too expensive for most students and freezes most people out of any sort of appeal.

The 2nd issue the number of class reps to be awarded to each class is to be set at 2 regardless of class size. The reasons given are that there isn't enough work for more then 2 class reps in any class and that not enough people are turning up for union council.
This doesn't fix anything with class rep attendance or people being bad class reps it just means that quorum is easier to get for union council.
If the union is all about fairness and equal representation as it says in the aims then why does a class of 5 get the same votes as a class of 250? Union council is the main arbiter of union policy, as most of the decisions are made there, why should classes not have a fair opportunity to be represented there?

This is totally, unequivocally and borderline maliciously misleading, incorrect and without foundation.

First off there IS a mechanism whereby the Class Rep Council can challenge the Presidents interpretation of the constitution. In fact the new constitution brings DCUSU into line with good practice across the country. The Class Rep Council can collectively over-rule the Presidents interpretation.

Secondly there IS a mechanism in the new Constitution to review the work of the Students' Union executive. It is established when and where needed. The language of the new constitution has been made much more accessible and archaic terms such of "Commission of Arbitration" have been consigned to history, as they should be.

This new Constitution introduces what is lacking in review and disciplinary structures in the current Constitution: fair procedures, accountability, democracy and impartiality. No longer will we have a situation where a President will dupe Union Council into electing his/her mates on to the Commission at the start of the year and then allow the President to force through his/her agenda or get rid of people when they become a pain. Instead the review and disciplinary committees will be established when necessary, meaning Class Reps will have got to know each other much better, would have assessed for themselves who is best to sit on one of these committees and have an election amongst themselves for this. Is this not much better than the current state-of-play? I think so, and Union Council did also.

I also don't recollect anyone saying at Union Council anything about the only recourse to challenge the SU is legal action, (open to correction, but I was actually paying attention). However this new Constitution, unlike the current one, is being proofed by a competent, professional and experienced firm of solicitors. The same however cannot be said of the current constitution which has caused so much hassle.

You also forget to mention that the new Constitution abolishes the position of Campaigns & Information Officer and instead creates a separate Education Officer who will be able to concentrate specifically on education matters, unlike the current (mind-boggling) structure which expects the Education/Welfare Officer to do both. The current system is not just unfair to the person in office but to the student body as a whole and also dilutes the ability of the officer to effectively represent students at university level also.

Just to point out that campaigns would then be run by the officer they fall under but there will be campaign support given to them.

The new Constitution gives significant powers to Class Rep Council but also, for the first time outline the duties of a Class Rep.

In relation to your second point; there was some unease about having a blanket maximum class rep level of two. However you forget to mention that a good debate was had amongst the Class Reps AND they voted quite substantially to endorse this part of the new Constitution. The only objections seemed to come from nursing students and one or two others. These objections were noted and discussed amongst the Class Reps. Where people also expected complaints was from CA - and a class rep from that class stood up and spoke in FAVOUR of the two class-rep limit.

In relation to bad Class Reps - that is a matter for the class to decide not for the SU to arbitrarily come in and judge a Rep to be useless. The new Constitution outlines what the duties of a Rep so now, for the first time, classes have a measurement of what is expected of their Rep and have legitimate methods of removing someone where that person is not performing. This also helps to somewhat avoid the personal clashes that can occur too, but alas not always.

You are right this doesn't per se actively encourage people to attend Class Rep Council (the new name for Union Council, if this Constitution is passed by students). However streamlined decision-making, energised and empowered Class Rep Council meetings will. This new constitution removes ridiculous elements of the current constitution like the inability to engage in political campaigning to allow the union to better represent its members on issues that are relevant to them.

Most importantly these changes WILL NOT actively discourage Class Reps from attending. Class Rep attendance is not a constitutional matter it's an operational matter and the fact that there will be a Education Working Group, a Welfare Working Group and a dedicated Education Officer will mean much more resources will be available to promote attendance and participation unlike the current structures which basically stifle debate and burn out sabbatical officers by the end of first semester.

tomar-re

The removal of the commission of arbitration limits the ability for any member to call for an interpretation of the constitution if they disagree with the president or union council. Under the new constitution the member would have to ask union council to create a committee and then see the issue. This creates a problem when you ask a body to create a subcommittee to see if it acted wrongly.
A body set aside from both union council and the exec would have the ability to remove most if not all of the bias towards that body.
Eg: last year a misreading of the constitution by Alan Keegan led to David Doyle, chair of union council(UC), casting a vote he did not have to elect Brian McDonald secretary of UC. UC passed a motion that stated that the decision stood despite the fact that the election was invalid.
Arbitration met to discuss the issue and decided that the vote did not exist and that the election must be re-run.

The additional non-binding nature of any workgroups of UC decisions means that those that broke the constitution can continue to do so, this leads to the situation where the only method of true recompense is to go beyond DCUSU. This was talked about in semester 1 during UC questions on the new constitution.

Gary if you are worried about re-balancing power then you should look at how union council has acted in the past and how the commission has delivered its judgments. Union council has only once in my memory voted against the president and that was to end an unpopular protest and boycott under Charlene Connolly and that year they were happy to give a retroactive pay increase to the sabbat officers. XPS look at the article about the commission in the constitution, it is and was a fair, unbiased and transparent institution. A workgroup of UC does not have the authority or the impartiality to fulfill the role of the commission of arbitration.

The current constitution lists the duties of a class rep and how to remove one in article 8.1.11 and 8.1.6 respectively.
I don't care about workgroups or about how this doesn't change how many people attend, this is about a principle of how the union runs.
Either the union is for representing people equally and giving them an equal voice at every level or it isn't. Giving large classes the same voice as a class of 4 doesn't represent anyone fairly. A class rep isn't about workloads or anything of the sort it's primarily a voice in UC to make decisions in the best interest of their class.

XPS I won't argue with you about some of the good ideas in the proposed constitution but the bad points fundamentally undermine the ideals of the union so that it cannot be passed.

DCUlad

Who gives a flying **** about these two minor issues, that at least 97% of DCU students wouldnt know or care about.

The main thing the SU have done is organise a ****e RAG week, and I can't believe this isn't being discussed here, while youse talk about consitutions and rubbish.

myk

XPS wrote: »

You also forget to mention that the new Constitution abolishes the position of Campaigns & Information Officer and instead creates a separate Education Officer who will be able to concentrate specifically on education matters, unlike the current (mind-boggling) structure which expects the Education/Welfare Officer to do both. The current system is not just unfair to the person in office but to the student body as a whole and also dilutes the ability of the officer to effectively represent students at university level also.

Has anyone considered what it was like when there were two separate sabbatical positions for Welfare and Education in DCUSU before? And have they considered why the decision was taken to merge those two positions?

Have those making the proposals talked to any SU members or officers from that time?

I'm glad to hear that the constitution will be proofed by a qualified solicitor this time- as the last set of changes seems to have been farcical between the drafters botching certain areas and deliberately ridiculing the constitution by inserting nonsense positions.

tomar-re

DCUlad wrote: »

Who gives a flying **** about these two minor issues, that at least 97% of DCU students wouldnt know or care about.

The main thing the SU have done is organise a ****e RAG week, and I can't believe this isn't being discussed here, while youse talk about consitutions and rubbish.

It's two minor issues now, when the SU does something you disagree with later on, it will be something huge. Maybe you should care that while the SU make **** rag weeks they still manage to find time to run 2 piss ups a year for the class reps. Maybe you'd care more when these people are the ones that hold all of the power outside the exec and there is no ability for people to question union councils actions.

If you have an issue turn up to union council and ask why it was so lack luster. I'd love a student not involved in the union clique to go up and say that. I believe it will be Wednesday 9th of March at 5pm in qg15, go please and have your say like you're entitled to.

tomar-re

Well it's off! Constitution is back and it's available here:
http://www.dcusu.ie/union-structure/constitution.138.html

Remember vote early and vote no!

silentdog

The Commission of Arbitration being dropped is no small thing.
It now takes a qualified majority of class reps to over rule the president if they make a mistake. That's two-thirds of class reps. I don't ever see that happening. I don't think I've ever seen more than 50% of class reps defy a president, never mind 66%.

Since a thread hasn't beens started on this issue, s'pose I will.
Or at least I didn't see a thread anyways.

The proposed new DCUSU Constitution vote takes place this week. The SU are proposing a Yes vote themselves.

http://www.dcusu.ie/news/dcusu-announce-constitution-refernendum-.368.html

I tried reading the constitution, and failed miserably.

What's it all about?

And once that's established, what do you think about it?

Grudaire

Why are they splitting the role of clubs and socs officer?

lithiumoxide

How will this affect postgrads?

OrionsBelt

Cliste wrote: »

Why are they splitting the role of clubs and socs officer?

Often the position of clubs and socs officer is filled by someone that is either big in society life or in club life but not both. This means that, for example, if a society head is elected, the clubs aspect suffers.

lithiumoxide wrote: »

How will this affect postgrads?

Instead of electing two post grad positions (post grad chair and post grad education), those two positions will be combined into one position

Wolfe Tone

Arguments for and against?

vinnyb

I will be voting against. I feel that it is a lazy attempt. I agree that the Constitution needs a radical overhaul to bring it into tune with the student body and also due to some of the renowned ridiculous irrelevant material in the current constitution.

However, I feel that the proposed constitution is a weak attempt to brush over the cracks on the Union. For me it fails to identify the over riding flaw which exists in the Union, the lack of real representation which means something to students. Experience has shown that the your average student doesn't identify with Faculty Convenors etc.

Perhaps if we had tried something different by electing Convenors through Class Rep Council, which to me seems like natural thought progression and making the Convenors reportable to the Class Rep Council.

One could then use the free up places on the exec to give a greater level of representation by electing officers such as International Officer, Disabilites Officer, Irish Officer etc. officers who would have a mandate to represent students on pressing issues which matter to them. Hence attracting them towards the Union. Use the electoral campaigns of these new executive positions to create debate amongst the student body about the issues that really matter to students.

While all the same everyday academic issues could still be looked after by the convenors in a reformed guise. I feel that currently many students feel apathy towards Convenors as the position is not a position from which will every create policy debate. Often with the Convenor election the same material is regurgitated by all candidates and the winner is the one who manages to present the information in the best way. I don't feel this is the right way about going about creating a strong inclusive Union where people feel strongly about who is representing them and the issues they are being represented on.

The greatest irony of the constitutional reform was that it didn't real seem to encapsulate a wide ranging consultation process. Surely one of the main aims of the constitutional reform should be enticed people to play a more active role in the Union yet those who are currently inactive didn't seem to be interacted with as the Union seek to overcome these forthcomings.

This is no reflection on this years sabbats and exec. officers who I think are doing a great job with their hands tied behind their backs. Also I am sure other people will disagree with me on varying levels. This is not meant to be antagonistic, it is only my view in relation to the new constitution and how I feel it fails to address the biggest issue which faces the Union. I just feel that if the Union is to make real progress as a strong representative body it needs to take radical steps to improve the way the students are represented.

In summation I don't agree with voting for something purely on the basis of it being superior to its predecessor if it is still going to be inferior than what is needed. Why should we settle when we can have better.

Green Hand Guy

OrionsBelt wrote: »

Instead of electing two post grad positions (post grad chair and post grad education), those two positions will be combined into one position

But what if someone is elected who's big into chairs, but not into education. The seating quality of postgrads will surely improve, but at what cost?! :P

Cy_Revenant

A thread had already been started on this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056191584

thusspakeblixa

Can anyone give me a good reason why they've dropped the stated aim

“To work for a more equitable education system in this country, based on the principle that education is a fundamental right, not a privilege”.

in the new constitution? I know it's a non-operative clause, and has little practical effect, but why has it been removed? At least the aspiration was there to work towards an equal education system before.

Grudaire

OrionsBelt wrote: »

Often the position of clubs and socs officer is filled by someone that is either big in society life or in club life but not both. This means that, for example, if a society head is elected, the clubs aspect suffers.

Old constitution "9.2.2.1. The Clubs and Societies Officer shall co-ordinate activities between the Union, Clubs and Societies."

Odd move, I thought the idea was that they would liaise between the scc, spc and union. Not that it makes much difference the link between spc and clc is gone.

Attol

Threads merged.

Cyclonius

I don't know what anyone else's opinion is, but personally I don't think the student's union has done a great job in explaining to the general student body why a new constitution is needed. While they might have had a debate on the matter, and had made both the current and proposed versions of the constitution available for viewing, it's probably fair to say that the overall percentage of the DCU student population that'd avail of these measures would be quite small.

Wolfe Tone

Here lads I have no idea what the aim or point of this new constitution is, so I plan to vote no as I won't vote yes to something I don't understand.

zynaps

Cyclonius wrote: »

I don't know what anyone else's opinion is, but personally I don't think the student's union has done a great job in explaining to the general student body why a new constitution is needed. While they might have had a debate on the matter, and had made both the current and proposed versions of the constitution available for viewing, it's probably fair to say that the overall percentage of the DCU student population that'd avail of these measures would be quite small.

+1. This thread is the first mention of the actual changes in the constitution that I've found online. The DCUSU page on the subject, while urging students to vote yes, appears to say absolutely nothing about what the changes are, and simply links to a 27 page PDF of the proposed constitution and a who-knows-how-long DOC of the old one.

Expecting those of us who could not attend the debate to either vote yes because they asked us to, or to read and compare 60 pages of legal contracts, is utterly laughable. Almost nobody would have the time or inclination to read both, and I'm strongly tempted to vote no for that reason alone.

Can you imagine if the government had said "ok lads, we want you to vote YES on the Lisbon Treaty. We're not going to bother telling you what it's about, but it's only 60 pages of legalese, go download it"?

Diarmsquid

Any class rep who was at the first Union Council of the Year will know that the current constitution is a nightmare to operate under. Voting on position took around 5 hours because the chair had to abide by a lot of nonsense procedures that were put in place without the SU in mind. The new constitution makes this a lot smoother, but still as fair.

Also under the current constitution, the SU isn't meant to have a stance on any political issue, even if mandated by Union Council. So for instance, the SU's decision to march against fees was technically unconstitutional and a student could have challenged them on it and won. The new constitution enables us to properly engage in these types of issues on a national level.

The main reason I see for the removal of Equality Officer from the Executive Committee is that there is rarely enough of a workload for this person to justify them attending long weekly Exec meetings. So many previous Equality Officers have had this complaint. The new constitution allows for the election of an equality officer from Class Rep Council. In fact, if we vote yes, anyone can stand up at Class Rep Council and say "I feel there is a need for a X officer", be it International Officer, Nursing Officer etc, accountable to Class Rep Council. It's a much fairer system than the way it is at the moment, and gives more freedom and flexibility to us to elect people to positions to deal with issues that are important in any year.

Basically the previous constitution was very unprofessionally written (there are Star Wars in-jokes in it for gods sake) and not proof read by anyone with legal background. It's lazy at points and basically says "refer to the way the Dail does it" at points.

And the point about the Commission of Arbitration isn't very strong either. To say that the Sabats will have free reign now completely ignores what we're doing here, voting on a legal set of rules they (and everyone) have to work with. If anyone acts in a way that contradicts the new constitution, the courts of Ireland can make that judgement, as opposed to leaving the interpretation of the constitution to a select few students elected in week 1 (as it stands with the Commission of Arbitration.

A lot of thought has gone into this Constitution, it's really a good choice for us.

tomar-re

Diarmsquid wrote: »

Any class rep who was at the first Union Council of the Year will know that the current constitution is a nightmare to operate under. Voting on position took around 5 hours because the chair had to abide by a lot of nonsense procedures that were put in place without the SU in mind. The new constitution makes this a lot smoother, but still as fair.

Now that we know how to run it, to be fair it ran for an hour the year before with only 1 **** up. This is not sufficient reason to bring in the new one, plus they all got their free alcohol the weekend before so they should be expected to have to put in some time for it. It's not just for padding the cv.

Diarmsquid wrote: »

Also under the current constitution, the SU isn't meant to have a stance on any political issue, even if mandated by Union Council. So for instance, the SU's decision to march against fees was technically unconstitutional and a student could have challenged them on it and won. The new constitution enables us to properly engage in these types of issues on a national level.

Article 2.1.2 says that it's ok to challenge the government on that one, no way to overrule that one.

The main reason I see for the removal of Equality Officer from the Executive Committee is that there is rarely enough of a workload for this person to justify them attending long weekly Exec meetings. So many previous Equality Officers have had this complaint. The new constitution allows for the election of an equality officer from Class Rep Council.......[/quote]
We always could get any officers or committees made up at union council, it just has been ignored by the union during this campaign and every union council in years.

Diarmsquid wrote: »

And the point about the Commission of Arbitration isn't very strong either. To say that the Sabats will have free reign now completely ignores what we're doing here, voting on a legal set of rules they (and everyone) have to work with. If anyone acts in a way that contradicts the new constitution, the courts of Ireland can make that judgement, as opposed to leaving the interpretation of the constitution to a select few students elected in week 1 (as it stands with the Commission of Arbitration.

A lot of thought has gone into this Constitution, it's really a good choice for us.

Ah Diarmuid, when it comes to a more open document such as an ultra flexible constitution like this that there needs to be some balance to the presidents ability to decide what it says and reading between the lines.
You are leaving the interpretation now to the president exclusively unless 66% of union council vote against them, this has never happened in 6 years and wouldn't happen in the majority of cases, so we leave it to one person instead of 9, so much better.

Since it is so silly, how to you appeal decisions made against individuals? Or what happens if there is a dispute between union and exec, I know it's a crazy thought but it happens a lot in England that the radical unions over there protest themselves at times over issues that arise so maybe there is a point to it.

Diarmsquid

tomar-re wrote: »

Now that we know how to run it, to be fair it ran for an hour the year before with only 1 **** up. This is not sufficient reason to bring in the new one, plus they all got their free alcohol the weekend before so they should be expected to have to put in some time for it. It's not just for padding the cv.

Making something long and painful for no other reason that the class reps have to earn it is not very good policy. It just puts people off attending, and damages the union as a whole.

tomar-re wrote: »

Article 2.1.2 says that it's ok to challenge the government on that one, no way to overrule that one.

Okay, perhaps fees was a bad example on my part, but is this not true for any other political issue?

tomar-re wrote: »

We always could get any officers or committees made up at union council, it just has been ignored by the union during this campaign and every union council in years.

Was unaware of this to be fair, but I think it's important that this function still remains under the new constitution. It still allows for the creation of the Equality Officer.

tomar-re wrote: »

Ah Diarmuid, when it comes to a more open document such as an ultra flexible constitution like this that there needs to be some balance to the presidents ability to decide what it says and reading between the lines.
You are leaving the interpretation now to the president exclusively unless 66% of union council vote against them, this has never happened in 6 years and wouldn't happen in the majority of cases, so we leave it to one person instead of 9, so much better.

Since it is so silly, how to you appeal decisions made against individuals? Or what happens if there is a dispute between union and exec, I know it's a crazy thought but it happens a lot in England that the radical unions over there protest themselves at times over issues that arise so maybe there is a point to it.

In your example, surely this Exec, if completely ignoring their student body, and the votes of Union Council, would not listen to a sub-committee of this Council. Union Council should always have more power than the Commission of Arbitration.

tomar-re

My point about the 4 hour meeting is that it was a once off and even if it happens once a year people will turn up if you make it clear to them. Class reps aren't just about having the craic, there is work there too and people need to be aware of it before they join. This is more of an issue of how to run a meeting and promote class reps then constitution.

Arbitration is not below the union council in the same way as the charity committee or any other. It sits apart from both the exec and the union council, this is a fundamental difference between it and any other sub-committee. The government appoints judges that can quash laws that are un-constitutional is this a problem for you too?
If the president ignores the constitution and arbitration say they are, then they decide to continue to do so then their pay can be docked or even withheld as the constitution is a contract between the entire union.

legendal

Cyclonious wrote:

I don't know what anyone else's opinion is, but personally I don't think the student's union has done a great job in explaining to the general student body why a new constitution is needed.

Check your email. I think the effort put into campaigning has been pretty even from both sides.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Here lads I have no idea what the aim or point of this new constitution is, so I plan to vote no as I won't vote yes to something I don't understand.

I accept you're completely within your democratic right to do that, but I find that disgusting. Bit of research, maybe you'll find something you like. Or dislike. Either way you're doing yourself - and everyone - a better service.

zynaps

legendal wrote: »

I accept you're completely within your democratic right to do that, but I find that disgusting. Bit of research, maybe you'll find something you like. Or dislike. Either way you're doing yourself - and everyone - a better service.

Disgusting? Hardly. If the SU (or the government, or whoever) propose replacing the constitution with a completely different one, while providing very little (accessible, i.e. online) information other than offering the entire "legally proofed" document for review, then voting no is safer than voting yes, unless the current constitution is a complete trainwreck that couldn't be made worse.

The [URL="[url]http://www.dcusu.ie/union-structure/constitution.138.html[/url]"]SU webpage[/URL] "describing" the changes may as well say: "We assure that these changes are for the best. To find out what they are, read and compare 60 pages worth of legal mumbo jumbo"...

Deckof52

I'm just going to clarify a few of the leaky information points and false hoods presented during this thread.

#1 The length of Union Council
-The first meeting of Union Council was seven hours long, not four, not five, I timed it myself and you can ask anyone that stayed the full seven hours, because after four hours half of the Council left.

Why was Union Council seven hours long?
- The meeting didn't go on that long because of a bad chair. The meeting went on that long because one of the members of the College View had a copy of the constitution in his hands and decided to make an example of the rigid and inflexible rules within the constitution. The meeting went on so long because voting couldn't happen by proxy and if two class representatives requested secret ballot voting then it had to be by Secret Ballot, and two Class Reps enforced this rule. Thus a seven hour long meeting.

Why is this bad?
- The fact that half of the Class Reps left after the anarchy at this meeting showed that this constitution actively enforced apathy. This college has an 80% apathy rate and under this rigid structure ensured that people got tired and annoyed at the Union and its structure.
-If you believe that the timing issue is irrelevant and that Class Reps should care more about representing their classes then look at the old and new constitution. Under the old constitution Class Reps don't have to do anything. Look at Art 8.1.11.1.

Actively seek the opinions of all group members and act in accordance with their needs and interests.

But under the new constitution more emphasis is put on what Class Reps must do, look at Art 5.6.7,

The Class Representatives of each class or research group shall convene a class meeting or research group meeting at least once a month during term time.

and 5.6.3

A Class Representative is required to represent the views of the majority of the class he or she represents

So an emphasis is moved away from saying what they should do and saying what they have to do as Class Representatives. If Class Reps hold monthly meetings that their Class can attend they can tell the Class Reps which way to vote, actual democracy happens where the people can get their say in Union Council.

#2 The Commission of Arbitration
-There has been a lot of debate on this Issue and the discussion of losing oversight. But I think we need to talk about the idea of the Commission of Arbitration. The Hierarchy of the Students Union goes as follows:
-Referendum
-Union Council
-Executive
So as to understand that Students through Referenda are at the top, then Class Reps and then Executive.

The Political Idea of the Commission?
-Under the old constitution the Commission is to be filled by five Class Reps, Secretary of UC, Returning Officer, One Executive member, One Postgard member. The outline of the commission says that Bias must be announced and members with bias must withdraw themselves from Commission. Commission is supposed to make judgments on

7.6.4.1.1. Disputes which may arise between Officers, Members, Union committees and Union Council.

7.6.4.1.2. Interpretation of the Constitution.

7.6.4.1.3. Alleged Breaches of Electoral Regulations.

The idea of having Class Reps and the Secretary that have a vested interest in Union Council; Returning Officer having a vested interest in Electoral Regulations as head of the Electoral Committee; and potentially the President and another member of Executive as Post Grad Officer who chairs the Post Grad Committee having a vested interest in the Executive all sitting on an "unbiased" body is bizarre! If people did take the bias rule seriously then the committee in its principle wouldn't make quorum; and if they chose to ignore the bias then you have a politically motivated group of people that gets the final say on union matters outlined.

The Legality of the Commission of Arbitration?
-Under the current constitutions the argument of legality of the commission has been raised. The legal principle used under the Irish Courts system is known as Stare Decises. This is the rule of precedent and also the rule that a lower court cannot overrule a higher court. Under the current system you have a clause in the Constitution that goes against this legal principle under which the courts system works. So you have Union Council creating a sub-committee that have binding decisions over Council which is the higher body. So any decision that the Commission of Arbitration makes if challenged in the High Court will be revoked under Stare Decises.
This body does not sit beside Union Council because it is not outlined in Art 4.2 on Governance of the Students Union where it is not mentioned and it is not stated anywhere within the constitution that the commission sits beside Union Council.

The New Reformed Disciplinary Committee?
-This can be called by a super majority of 66% of Class Reps. This ensures that a small number of people don't use this facility for political purposes and that the Council decides as a whole to look into any issues.
The new committee would be set up as an independent body with specific terms of reference to exclude people with bias to be called when needed and elect members when needed to report on the issue and allow all Class Reps to decide and not a small minority of Class Reps.

Oversight?
-This does not mean that there is no Oversight! The hierarchy of governance is the rule of oversight. Under the New Constitution if Council have a problem with Executive Officers of Sabbatical Officers not doing their job or having serious breaches of Student Union Policy then they can propose a motion of no confidence in them and a referendum will be held on their positions. If students feel that Union Council isn't doing anything about a bad Executive then they can propose a referendum with 200 student signatures and numbers. So that the final say and power of oversight lies with the students themselves. You are the oversight!

I hope you'll have a think about my points and where links were posted to actually look into the issues and ideas discussed.
If you need clarification I will post below a copy of the Old and Proposed Constitutions.
Old Constitution
New Constitution

I will encourage a Strong Yes Vote! A better constitution, legally drafted that supports students welfare and students voice!
Thanks,
Deckof52.
=]

phantom_lord

the yes side must be the laziest campaign I've ever seen, telling me "it's better" and giving no concrete reasoning is just not very convincing.

Cy_Revenant

legendal wrote: »

I accept you're completely within your democratic right to do that, but I find that disgusting. Bit of research, maybe you'll find something you like. Or dislike. Either way you're doing yourself - and everyone - a better service.

On the contrary, if you don't understand the issues in matters such as these, voting No is the right thing to do.

If you vote No, nothing will change.
If you vote Yes things could get better or worse, and if you don't understand the issues then you're gambling.

Cyclonius

legendal wrote: »

Check your email. I think the effort put into campaigning has been pretty even from both sides.

I check it regularly. Since I made my post there has been a brief message from each side on the main points of their arguments. Doing a search through the rest of my mail I could only come up with one other SU email that discussed briefly their reasons for wanting the constitution changed. There were plenty of emails advertising the referendum, discussing where to vote, etc. but the above were the only ones that I could find that discussed the rationale behind particular positions.

tomar-re

This is mainly for deckof52:

5,6,7 hours whatever, if you tell peoplle that it is a once off you won't get the attrition that you got this year. Taking away the ability to hold secret ballot is a bad idea, i am not going to justify this as it doesn't need to be.

Arbitration:
It works as a court for the union, it doesn't fit into the hierarchy as such, the irish political system works people, cabinet and dail, the courts aren't part of it.The courts are appointed by government in ireland and can be overrulled by them, the system doesn't fall down to your ideas and the constitution was written to mirror the irish state insofar as possible.

As you said there is an entire reem of rules about who can sit on a meeting due to bias, so that is a set means of limiting bias within judgements, isn't it nice. They have to step out or the decision is invalid, I love that kind of straightforward way of dealing with conflict of interests. You can also appoint people to replace them temporarily, they also have to fullfil the rules.


Stare Decises does not work in this issue as that is a matter of court system, the issue only would arrise if we had 1+ levels of arbitration. I checked this, it doesn't hold water in this case. It holds true in courts but not in parliments, people are nominated to the seanad and courts by the dail and both have powers to prevent the implementation of unconstitutional laws and to force the government to abide by the constitution. If you have a real example of how this legal term works in this situtation then use it, otherwise bull****.

The commission sits aside not beside union council, if you heard the speechs on tuesday you would have heard that. It is made up of both exec and UC to give it a balanced composition to ensure it doesn't appear biased.
Arbitration can be called by 1 person, that means that it is open and gives power to every person in the union to seek their help, a super-majority to see if something is wrong is a stupid way to work since only can a president be voted against if every class reps class says it's ok in a meeting of the class. That is how the new constitution works.

Oversight:
One hand does not wash the other, we have courts in the real world to watch the government, look at every tribunal out there. That is oversight, the structure of government is not the only means of oversight, it is usually a bad one and can always be rushed by see the acts in England following 9-11 and london bombings, the courts had to step in.

Expecting the average student that doesn't engage with the union to be the oversight is the worst idea ever, it means that there is no oversight as they don't care. If this was a different university with a different student ethos(ie apathy) then maybe it could work but it's a bad idea not to have procedural things in place.

Daysha

Hearing it has been passed.

XPS

Results are:

total 1238 yes: 859 no: 369 spoil: 10

Have to say delighted, and the concerns that were raised in the course of the campaign should be given the consideration by Class Rep Council they deserve next year.

Grudaire

Hmmm, although I didn't see any talk of a quota for the referendum to pass, based on the USI one where 10% quorum was needed there is a certain irony in that if the No's didn't vote that quorum wouldn't have been reached!

Deckof52

Just in so far as your points go, you obviously couldn't back up your own argument with legal principles or non-political solutions but just some random meandering.

#1 I never said that the Commission couldn't have power over Executive, as a sub committee of Union Council it can, but under the old constitution that wasn't its mandate. It had judicial power over Union Council affairs which doesn't work under the principle.

#2 Your idea that creating a student court system within the union really is incredibly flawed for a couple of reasons.
-The members of the Commission would still be Class Reps as well as acting in a judicial role. If you want to get into a comparison debate with the judiciary and commission of arbitration we can. The separation of powers rule is enforced and maintained under the Irish Constitution. This means that the conflict of interest is discarded because you cant have a judge who is a member of a the courts system as well as the Dail. So that a member of the judiciary couldn't abuse his power to write laws and then decide the validity of said laws. This takes the bias out and its why the Commission cannot work in comparison to the Irish Government System.
-I'm sorry but you haven't actually linked or given factual information how this principle doesn't work. Ive given a link to the definition and any law student would know the principle so please don't slander my information as bull without even being able to back up your own with quoted reference or legal precedent of the argument.

#3 Tribunals don't have binding judicial power, this week would be a prime example. They investigate and report on an issue and if a legal infidelity has taken place they report to the prosecution authority.
If you didn't notice this is what is proposed in the new constitution that the body is investigative rather than decisive!

#4 Arbitration being able to be called by one person is fanciful as a way of giving power to people because it allows politically motivated students to side track Union business and true welfare of the students. Is it fair if I run for office and lose and I decide on pursuing a personal vendetta against the Union that I have the power to call on a commission at anytime because I want to, to use for whatever motivations I may have?

Expecting the average student that doesn't engage with the union to be the oversight is the worst idea ever, it means that there is no oversight as they don't care. If this was a different university with a different student ethos(ie apathy) then maybe it could work but it's a bad idea not to have procedural things in place.

-For a No Campaign that called the Yes Campaign undemocratic and taking power away from students it isn't the Union that would links the words "average students" and "doesn't engage" in a negative capacity.
-This is a Union of members and if some members don't get active and don't care about the union that's their democratic choice. The idea of having a right to vote must always be remembered to be linked with the right to choose not to vote because that is true freedom under democracy.
-To describe students through referenda as the worst idea of all time really showcases the true principles of the No Campaign! Also for someone who mentions the idea of disengaging it was the No Campaign that ran a poster stating, "If you don't know, Vote No!", I'm sorry looking at that poster it encourages students to be apathetic by not asking them to get informed and also it doesn't encourage students to be progressive in their thinking and in how they want their Union.

Im very glad that the motion was passed and that the anarchic constitution is done with to the bin.

I'm especially glad that students didn't allow FEE DCU to use this constitutional issue for the launch of their own political agenda.

But I'm mostly happy that there was a strong campaign from
both sides regardless of the disagreements it showed that students
could get involved and place the direction of their union.
If this is a win for anyone its neither of the campaigns but all of the students that used their democratic right and voted!
YAY DEMOCRACY!!!!!

Thanks,
Deckof52
=]

Cy_Revenant

Now that I'm seeing the results, I'm regretting voting. If every no voter had stayed at home they'd have got their result.

zynaps

Cy_Revenant wrote: »

Now that I'm seeing the results, I'm regretting voting. If every no voter had stayed at home they'd have got their result.

Then for once I can say I'm not ashamed to have not bothered voting :P