C&S egm

Sid_Justice

hi guys

would anyone like to summarise the findings of the c&s egm and give an account of any investigations or actions formed.

couldn't make it to the meeting it was too packed.

please leave any defamation comments for facebook and not pollute this thread with such.

Ginge Young

It was a very productive meeting to be honest about.

Derek was very fair and polite in his open address apologizing to council for how he approached the issue last week and for what appeared to be finger pointing both myself (Keith Young) and James Heslin with regards approving it.

A lot of questions were asked (too many for me to fully summarize here, but should be available when minutes are released), but this much was made clear:

-There is no security for C+S from this happening again, it could. The only additional bonus is that now instead of Tomas Costello, who was secretary general and effectively doing 3 jobs, they have 3 people doing those 3 jobs which should make it easier to keep an eye on things.

-There is absolutely nothing protecting the C+S allocation of 2/3 of capitation and those in charge in the students union could currently at any time reduce it for any reason.

-The new structure of the students union which will see a Board of Management take over from the SU Executive does not grant any guaranteed representation on it directly from clubs and societies even though as the system currently stands they can make decisions regarding our funding.

As a result of this is was agreed a working group will be set up to investigating ways by which Clubs and Societies may protect themselves and their financial security. I assume this will be formed next week and I will be looking for a seat on it.

But again, a very productive meeting, chaired very well by Ross and for the most part, people asking the right questions. I'm very satisfied.

Sid_Justice

good man keith

Ginge Young

Oh as well, just a few things that will be discussed in the working group I assume are the following ideas which were raised last night by various people:

-Having a compulsory signatory (is that a word ha) on the accounts as they stand from Clubs and Societies.

-The creation of two completely separate bank accounts, for which the Union would need to approach clubs and societies exec for access.

-C+S separating from the Union and becoming our own legal entity.

All will need to be looked into obviously, but aim is going to be ensuring our own financial security.

FrankAmazing

did they detail the total amount that was transferred over ?
was it > 60 k ?

Polar Ice

http://soundcloud.com/thomondstudenttimes/clubs-socs-egm

I have no association with the group that made the recording

Nockz

FrankAmazing wrote: »

did they detail the total amount that was transferred over ?
was it > 60 k ?

There was mention of just under 200k... Perhaps someone could elaborate on what that was referring to.

Red Silurian

Nockz wrote: »

There was mention of just under 200k... Perhaps someone could elaborate on what that was referring to.

That was refering to a LOT of money

Ginge Young

The 200k you are referring to is the approximately 158k which is owed to C+S by the Union i would assume. As far I am led to believe 60k of this was used and given to ULSU services to help maintain them until the new academic year started.

The 158k although listed in the audited accounts under the section of creditors (as in money owed to us) was still viewed as a "union reserve" for the purposes of what the executive approved. There is still a level of disappointment surrounding this interpretation but the working group to deal with the issue should be established at the next C+S council and from there on work will be done to secure clubs and socs financial future.

Sid_Justice

good man keith keep at them we'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later.

Red Silurian

Funny... If any other shops were to fail they'd be closing them

constantg

so if im reading this right, 60k was taken by the union as a loan immediately.

another 158k was set aside a fund to draw down if and when needed. Is this cash gone from C&S to ULSU, or is it still there and just earmarked, or is it gone into a holding account, but still administered by ULSU?


Also does the CSDO have any impact on this scenario? I was always a little hazy on C&S exec being brutally honest. He sits on but does not chair afaik? Who approved the €158k?

Adam_M

From sitting on the C&S exec last year, Paul conducts the meetings, but he doesn't chair. The chair is appointed by the SU President (Something which I don't really understand and is somewhat ridiculous when considered). Derek was Chair last year, appointed by Ruan, but in my spell on the exec he didn't attend any of the meetings, though he attended pretty much all the Council Meetings. I'm not actually sure what obligation their is on the chair to attend C&S exec meetings.

The €60,000 which was earmarked to be spent sat on the agenda for C&S exec for practically the whole semester and was never properly discussed as Ruan and Tomas couldn't come to the meetings to specifically discuss it. Hence why it went to the last council meeting, with nothing really on the table to propose to council and as such it was decided that it would be spent this semester.

constantg

Adam_M wrote: »

From sitting on the C&S exec last year, Paul conducts the meetings, but he doesn't chair. The chair is appointed by the SU President (Something which I don't really understand and is somewhat ridiculous when considered). Derek was Chair last year, appointed by Ruan, but in my spell on the exec he didn't attend any of the meetings, though he attended pretty much all the Council Meetings. I'm not actually sure what obligation their is on the chair to attend C&S exec meetings.

The €60,000 which was earmarked to be spent sat on the agenda for C&S exec for practically the whole semester and was never properly discussed as Ruan and Tomas couldn't come to the meetings to specifically discuss it. Hence why it went to the last council meeting, with nothing really on the table to propose to council and as such it was decided that it would be spent this semester.

Couldn't or Didn't?


I will say this one thing about Derek, whatever your personal views are, I have NEVER EVER found him to be less than 100% brutally honest. And it can be pretty brutal and blunt and straight sometimes, but there isn't a dodgy element to his character financially.

I didn't see any of this coming, like everyone else. I'm also an alumnus, so apart from a reference from ULSU professionally and some goodwill towards some elements of C&S, it doesn't really affect me. But Derek is a good guy in my experience.

Sid_Justice

Adam_M wrote: »

From sitting on the C&S exec last year, Paul conducts the meetings, but he doesn't chair. The chair is appointed by the SU President (Something which I don't really understand and is somewhat ridiculous when considered). Derek was Chair last year, appointed by Ruan, but in my spell on the exec he didn't attend any of the meetings, though he attended pretty much all the Council Meetings. I'm not actually sure what obligation their is on the chair to attend C&S exec meetings.

The €60,000 which was earmarked to be spent sat on the agenda for C&S exec for practically the whole semester and was never properly discussed as Ruan and Tomas couldn't come to the meetings to specifically discuss it. Hence why it went to the last council meeting, with nothing really on the table to propose to council and as such it was decided that it would be spent this semester.

So essentially in an unofficial capacity Paul Lee runs all meetings?

constantg

Sid_Justice wrote: »

So essentially in an unofficial capacity Paul Lee runs all meetings?

He's been pretty quiet on all of this hasn't he? Shouldn't he have been in on the decision to transfer the cash? Why didn't he email C&S? Surely he owes them his ultimate loyalty than all other concerns?

DJCR

Ginge Young wrote: »

The 200k you are referring to is the approximately 158k which is owed to C+S by the Union i would assume.

You are correct.

Sid_Justice

constantg wrote: »

Couldn't or Didn't?


I will say this one thing about Derek, whatever your personal views are, I have NEVER EVER found him to be less than 100% brutally honest. And it can be pretty brutal and blunt and straight sometimes, but there isn't a dodgy element to his character financially.

I didn't see any of this coming, like everyone else. I'm also an alumnus, so apart from a reference from ULSU professionally and some goodwill towards some elements of C&S, it doesn't really affect me. But Derek is a good guy in my experience.

Maybe he's become institutionalised, be's been a SU officer for 3 terms

Adam_M

constantg wrote: »

Couldn't or Didn't?

Ah now thats the question I have been asking myself, especially since this news broke.

I didn't see any of this coming, like everyone else. I'm also an alumnus, so apart from a reference from ULSU professionally and some goodwill towards some elements of C&S, it doesn't really affect me. But Derek is a good guy in my experience.

Not providing a personal opinion on this or anything, but recently I have found that people fail to acknowledge the role Derek played in developing and expanding the C&S side of the Union in his time as an undergrad. He sat on Exec and iirc he was a receipient of the Mike Sadlier award.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

So essentially in an unofficial capacity Paul Lee runs all meetings?

I'm not sure what his remit is with regards to the meetings.

C&S Chair should be an elected position, in my opinion. The position as it currently it is fairly ridiculous in thats it is an SU appointment and not an elected position like Class Rep Chair.

That said, I don't know the history behind it, so there could be a reason for it.

constantg

Adam_M wrote: »

I'm not sure what his remit is with regards to the meetings.

C&S Chair should be an elected position, in my opinion. The position as it currently it is fairly ridiculous in thats it is an SU appointment and not an elected position like Class Rep Chair.

That said, I don't know the history behind it, so there could be a reason for it.

I'm listening to the EGM podcast (brilliant idea for transparency incidentally) and I'm struck by P Lee basically outlining the terms of reference of the meeting to the meeting before it kicked off. Now forgive me if i'm mistaken (and correct me) but isn't that the chair's perogative to set the rules of the meeting and to dictate the terms on which it will be conducted.

Not anyone elses. Not an employee of the Union (ANY employee elected or salaried). Like the chair should be dealing with this. If the chair had issues with the way he (it was a he wasn't it??) was treated, then the chair under the usual rules has the power to call for order, not recognise speakers, exclude trouble makers and if all else fails ressess the meeting or suspend it if order cannot be maintained.

My point, long and rambling as it is, is that there are elected officials, who tell the staff what to do. In theory. In practice wtf is happening to the oversight role? The advisory role?

Ginge Young

constantg wrote: »

He's been pretty quiet on all of this hasn't he? Shouldn't he have been in on the decision to transfer the cash? Why didn't he email C&S? Surely he owes them his ultimate loyalty than all other concerns?

Ah and so begins the story. Derek Daly sent a message to the Student's Union Executive in July requesting access to 60k euro which was in a union reserve. Oddly enough this was never sent Roisin Monaghan the secretary of the union (there is a new title there but I can't remember it). Some people asked questions about the money, derek decided to provide answers after a quorum for the decision was made. One person specifically asked that we be told where this money is coming from and an exact breakdown of where it's going.

This was provided, (again after a decision had been made) but one crucial element was left out. IT WAS C+S MONEY. He never sought fit to inform the clubs or socs officer regarding this or even Paul Lee he just continued ahead.

Seems like a bit of oversight on information for someone who has won the Mike Sadlier and put so many years into C+S right? One would think it would cross his mind to tell us, but he did not. So the SU Exec had unknowingly approved the use of C+S money.

Granted he was under pressure been given only a few days to make this decision, but as far as I am concerned the correct information was not given to us to decide appropriately with all information at hand and there was no respect for C+S concerns.

Subsequently to this at the EGM/in his blog he states that the C+S Reserve is held in the accounts of the Union and therefore it is there to spend by the union for the students in any way the union sees fit. So we as a body decide to set up all or own reserves, saving our side of the capitation the but the union can just take it anyway? That isn't right or fair. Leading on from this he also acknowledged that potentially our 2/3 capitation can reduced or not given at all if the SU only saw fit one year.

He said SU Exec had been provided with a set out audited accounts which clearly showed the money. I did get the accounts, but I guess he didn't think I would read it because he could not answer the question I put to him being that in the audited accounts there is a specific area called "Union Reserves". Did the money the Union take fall into this category? NOPE! But the money was taken anyway. In the audited budget, we are actually listed as a creditor would you believe, so the budget signed off by Derek Daly says they owe money to C+S, and defines what the Union Reserves.

The point is the entire thing was stupid: First there is no mention that it is C+S reserves only Union Reserves, which are defined in the accounts. The CS Exec are never contacted regarded it (bar me and James Heslin), who were not told this is really a C+S Issue. And finally even if you could get over those last 2 hurdles there is evidence there to say that even by agreeing to use Union Reserves, under the audited accounts not a bit of C+S Money is there.

Things are not always so great Constantg, it seems people may change. Also I don't see any revelance regarding Paul and the meetings etc etc to the topic of this thread......

EDIT: The working group to deal with all of this will hopefully be set up at tomorrows council meeting.

Denners.ie

Fantastic review Mr. Ginge, keep up the good work until the powers that be are punished for such actions.

shabouwcaw

Now forgive me if i'm mistaken (and correct me) but isn't that the chair's perogative to set the rules of the meeting and to dictate the terms on which it will be conducted.

can I just say, the reason Paul made that announcement was the Ross (unfairly) was accused of being an SU plant in the meeting the week before for keeping the discussion of the C&S surplus to 12 minutes and it was decided that an announcement would be made at the start of the meeting re: media etc, to stop it becoming a circus. Paul offered Ross the chance to do it himself, but they both decided that since Paul has an established relationship with the majority of C&S people would respond better to him establishing the ground rules. But he was definitely respectful of Ross' perogative, it was merely because Ross is new and relatively unknown to the majority that Paul made the announcement.

constantg

shabouwcaw wrote: »

can I just say, the reason Paul made that announcement was the Ross (unfairly) was accused of being an SU plant in the meeting the week before for keeping the discussion of the C&S surplus to 12 minutes and it was decided that an announcement would be made at the start of the meeting re: media etc, to stop it becoming a circus. Paul offered Ross the chance to do it himself, but they both decided that since Paul has an established relationship with the majority of C&S people would respond better to him establishing the ground rules. But he was definitely respectful of Ross' perogative, it was merely because Ross is new and relatively unknown to the majority that Paul made the announcement.

OK, that's fair enough! Apologies!

RE Derek, god lads, I honestly dunno. He was a good lad while I knew him. I mean he's getting a lot of stick for what he did. Maybe more accurately for the way in which he did it. He used be a C&S head, but he's a Sabbat now and Sabbats have to look after the big picture.

Anyway I hope its all worked out.

Polar Ice

Mildly amusing:
Derek's photo on the cover of the new issue of An Focal is bigger than the article :pac:

constantg

Polar Ice wrote: »

Mildly amusing:
Derek's photo on the cover of the new issue of An Focal is bigger than the article :pac:

lol

Next there'll be mention of spin and *looks around conspiratorily* the clique!!

DJCR

Ginge Young wrote: »

EDIT: The working group to deal with all of this will hopefully be set up at tomorrows council meeting.

Has that committee been set up yet? I missed the meeting on tuesday?

Ginge Young

The actual working group will be established at the next council (it could only be proposed at this one and approved in the next), but in the interim a group of us volunteered to be a working group to help define the terms of reference for the working group which will be established to actually deal with the issue.

Essentially our job will be to set up exactly what the task of the working group will be and what ideas should be researched and developed to find out the positives and negatives of each.

Those on the current working group are:

Seamas Kearney – YFG
Keith Young – OPC
Hugh O’Brien – Drama
Mark Brennan – Skynet
James Heslin – Games
Nicola Sutton – International

We're trying to find a suitable time to meet now.

demolitionman

guys i enjoy reading this thread but as an SU outsider i still cant understand why double d actually did wrong?

anyone care to shed some light on it, as if they were explaining it to someone who knew absolutely nothing.

(Keith has made great efforts above to detail what double d did it seems like it requires a knowledge of how the union works/operates/who is in charge of finances. personally, i dont even know what the executive is, who is roisin monaghan etc)

how much of a deception did he actually engage in?
bare bones, lay man terms, non su head jargon if anyone could do so I would greatly appreciate it.
thank you

Delta Kilo

From my observation of it technically he didnt do anything wrong. He didnt break any rules, because there arent any there. As it stands the SU can do what they like with C&S capitation.

But that is what C&S now want to change. That is the reason behind the working group, not to apportion blame, but to devise a system where the SU would need approval from us before they could even sneeze on our money.

Ginge Young

Alot of the issue for people is that Derek asked for access to SU Reserves. The C+S Reserves as detailed in the audited accounts but are not included in the section defining SU Reserves.

When Derek asked for access, he never mentioned that it was in fact C+S Reserves he was asking which he is willing to define as SU Reserves because they sit in that account. However there are rules out there that say C+S Govern their own money. Those reserves would not be in existence if it wasn't for C+S Council.

So basically he asked for SU Reserves (C+S Money technically is not included in this as we are listed as a creditor not a reserve, at least this is what I am led to believe I am not an accountant and he didn't really answer the question when I asked it at the extraordinary council meeting), approval was given even though people had no awareness it was C+S Money and a lot expressed regret because that should have been a key factor in the decision process and then there is the question of the SU being able to access that money without CS Exec/Council approval.

Given the situation of only having a few days to decide it was very difficult for him no doubt. But a lot of people are still not happy with how it was done. It has however highlighted the lack of protection for C+S.

dancom

Hmmm all rather interesting.

I'm wondering what role had Paul Lee in this, if any?

I'm also assuming that CnS will get the money back once this years capitation comes through?