Censorship of ULSU discussions

MrsStuffings

Why is it that every time a thread is started on ULSU and the posts are negative, it is immediately locked.

It is censorship of the highest order.

No one can speak ill of the SUSSR or if you do you will be infracted/banned.

The thread earlier bore no similarities to last weeks one bar the title. Last weeks thread related to the poor standard of presenting and shoddy nature of the radio, whereas this weeks one related to the clear totalitarian nature of the ULFM hierarchy.

I understand Spectre and Petee are both long gone from UL now, and in my opinion their former involvement with the union is both clouding their objectivity, and also I feel they are both out of touch with the ul body politic. Neither of them are students in UL so why are they still moderating a forum, in particular one in which they have clear bias towards certain posters and viewpoints.

There's obviously a large spectrum of distaste towards ULFM and the way they are operating, so I ask why censor the feelings of those who wish to speak out for change.
It's a disgrace.

This post isn't a complaint against the moderators (I understand the procedure if i want to report one)

This is a post about the bias shown by them re: certain topics and am I the only person who thinks this.

PunkFreud

Because there is loads of SU bashing with no real grounds. A lot of neww threads are just being negative for no reason. Then again:

Don't Feed the Trolls

MrsStuffings

PunkFreud wrote: »

Because there is loads of SU bashing with no real grounds. A lot of neww threads are just being negative for no reason. Then again:

Don't Feed the Trolls

If you have nothing to add to the discussion please don't post.

Ginge Young

PunkFreud wrote: »

Because there is loads of SU bashing with no real grounds. A lot of neww threads are just being negative for no reason. Then again:

Don't Feed the Trolls

With all due respect, the most recent one (and yes I can see the reasons as to why it was locked to prevent a repeat of the other ULFM thread) had incredible grounds. If your going to sit there and claim everything is hunky dory then I am very sorry for you.

I don't necessarily disagree with it being locked, but claiming there was no grounds for it is complete and utter tripe.

While I agree with advice I saw elsewhere on the internet of literally camping in the SU to solve the issue and get the minutes, there is no harm in throwing it up here for the public eye too.

This entire situation has gotten out of control way too quickly. An issue needs to be made of it all at SU Exec (if it hasn't already) and it needs to be sussed out. Endless bitching is pointless on here at the moment and so is taking the standpoint of there being no issue.

MrsStuffings

I want to know what Kelly O Brien is trying to hide.

This is no way for a student representative to behave.

somehow i dont think keith o neill would have been as sneaky and underhand. shame she didnt mention those personality traits when i voted for her. you can be damn sure keith would have made a proper go of the radio as well, not the miserable farce it is at the moment. and also kelly's comment about the listenership value resetting everyday is false. that 51 record high was set last week during censored. the mean listenership outside that show ranges from 3 - 15.
not only is she sneaky she's also a liar/ignorant of how her radio listernship is recorded.

constantg

This is slightly off-topic, but given the thread on ULFM was closed (the ULSU bashing link aspect) I said I'd risk a post here. What is the procedure for alumni to request a copy of the ULFM minutes? Seeing as I'm no longer a UL student should I use my old UL ID number? Or my new NUIG one?

Also I'm a reasonably busy person with research and my life in general, so I don't really have the freedom to make a personal appointment with the Communications Officer of the ULSU regarding this matter. Is there a facility whereby an interested past member of the Union can request a copy of the minutes by say downloading the form, filling it in, posting it to the (probably) quite busy CO , with the administration fee and hopefully getting the request successfully processed?

Also this reminds me of the FOIA debacle when the FF government put in a monetary fee as well as extra requirements for information requests.

MrsStuffings

constantg wrote: »

This is slightly off-topic, but given the thread on ULFM was closed (the ULSU bashing link aspect) I said I'd risk a post here. What is the procedure for alumni to request a copy of the ULFM minutes? Seeing as I'm no longer a UL student should I use my old UL ID number? Or my new NUIG one?

Also I'm a reasonably busy person with research and my life in general, so I don't really have the freedom to make a personal appointment with the Communications Officer of the ULSU regarding this matter. Is there a facility whereby an interested past member of the Union can request a copy of the minutes by say downloading the form, filling it in, posting it to the (probably) quite busy CO , with the administration fee and hopefully getting the request successfully processed?

Also this reminds me of the FOIA debacle when the FF government put in a monetary fee as well as extra requirements for information requests.

the difficult procedures have been put in place to either a) hide something they don't want us knowing or b) the co is just being a downright snotty cunt who think's her and her twenty listeners are above the student populus

there doesnt appear to be a procedure for anyone to get the minutes, current or past student alike.

what are they hiding?!

After the derick daly debacle the last thing the SU needs now is even greater lack of transparency.

Ginge Young

You have to be a current member of ULFM/ULSU, if that includes alumni I your good, otherwise, sorry bud >,< I feel like this is something I should know ha!

Nockz

Surely they have nothing to hide... right? It's a RADIO STATION for crying out loud.

MrsStuffings

you'd think that but then why the cloak and daggers and mystical shrouds.

AlwaysRight

In all fairness things are getting a little silly here. Granted people want to know -that's fine do something about it that isn't being petty or rude. Obviously this now outside working hours so nothing constructive is going to happen at the moment...especially not with some peoples tone.

Might be an idea to find out when the different committees of ULSU meet and try have it raised in a forum that is fair and unlikely to result in awful remarks like some being posted here. Executive meets on Thursdays, Class Reps meet next week - those might be good places to have your issues discussed.

I don't know, who am I to say really, because to be honest its a radio station which really doesn't bother me a whole amount. I listen but who really needs to read all the minutes. But I suppose curiosity is part of life. But at the end of the day calling people disgusting names is a very low part of life that I think should be avoided.

Point is....leave it be for now, raise it through better forums with better tone and maybe something will come of it.

MrsStuffings

AlwaysRight wrote: »

In all fairness things are getting a little silly here. Granted people want to know -that's fine do something about it that isn't being petty or rude. Obviously this now outside working hours so nothing constructive is going to happen at the moment...especially not with some peoples tone.

Might be an idea to find out when the different committees of ULSU meet and try have it raised in a forum that is fair and unlikely to result in awful remarks like some being posted here. Executive meets on Thursdays, Class Reps meet next week - those might be good places to have your issues discussed.

I don't know, who am I to say really, because to be honest its a radio station which really doesn't bother me a whole amount. I listen but who really needs to read all the minutes. But I suppose curiosity is part of life. But at the end of the day calling people disgusting names is a very low part of life that I think should be avoided.

Point is....leave it be for now, raise it through better forums with better tone and maybe something will come of it.

ah would you come off it.
do you not think the methods used so far have been reasonable?
I mean it's not as if people are kicking in kellys door hurling stuff at her cause she wont give the minutes.they simply emailed her and asked politely but were told to fuck off because she wanted to augment the secrecy that already surround ulsu.

Nockz

That tone is just going to lock this thread faster. If we maintain a sense of composure, the more likely things are to be civil.

AlwaysRight

MrsStuffings wrote: »

ah would you come off it.
do you not think the methods used so far have been reasonable?
I mean it's not as if people are kicking in kellys door hurling stuff at her cause she wont give the minutes.they simply emailed her and asked politely but were told to fuck off because she wanted to augment the secrecy that already surround ulsu.

At the moment I cannot say whether it is reasonable or unreasonable because I do not have the full information. I'm sure, in time, if the correct routes are taken then I will and I will get back to you!

As for "coming off of it" - I'd love to, but I would prefer to stay civilized rather than sink to calling people "downright snotty ****"s.

In a sense you are hurling stuff at her when throw things like that around. Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't feel too good if you threw it at me. And maybe your a tough one who doesn't mind verbal abuse towards you, but it might be worth respecting other people...even just a little. She is a person.

Denners.ie

ULFM is a farce as a whole.

I have many issues with the following response she gave.

"I decided to hold off until Wednesday so that I could clear the decision with the ULFM Board of Directors.

We have decided to respectfully deny your request as we do not feel “curiosity” is a valid enough reason to request official minutes.

Furthermore, we have decided to implement a system for requesting minutes.

From now on, this is the procedure:

Arrange a meeting with the Communications Officer to obtain an Information Request Form.
Fill out this form stating name, address, email, reason for requesting information etc and return to the Communications Officer with a photocopy of your current UL Student ID and a €2 administration charge.
Your request will be discussed at the next ULFM Development Board meeting.
You will be notified of the decision via email.
Should your request be granted, a hard copy of the minutes will be posted to you after you have signed a non-disclosure agreement.
Hope this clarifies matters.".

The use of "I decided" is quite brash and forceful, and shows an authoritative pedestal that insinuates that Ms. O'Brien feels like she can do as she pleases in relation to the current regiment in ULFM.

Furthermore, it is quite ignorant that although she had time to decide to contact the board of directors she didn't portray the courtesy of an e-mail to the minute seeker until questioned. Stinks of small time but I guess that is what it is anyway.

Secondly, it is absolutely scandalous that because she doesn't want to release the minutes for whatever self reasoning she has, she can decide to implement a procedure out of thin air. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it in my book.

So what we have established is that Ms. O' Brien is authoritative, lacks courtesy and portrays a pig ignorant attitude that I wouldn't have associated with a decent person not to mind a CO.

The following is directed at Kellington Dawg.

Why is a valid reason required to obtain a copy of the minutes if the person is willing to sign a non-disclosure form anyway? Surely that only suggests to everyone that you, or your colleagues, are hiding something.

I am welcoming you to make my argument look foolish, but like ULFM, I assume it will be quite underwhelming.

Nockz

And the civil tone just got out of here faster than the queues at the quick deli in the shop :eek:

constantg

MrsStuffings wrote: »

t...the co is just being a downright snotty cunt

I think you should withdraw THAT comment immediately. I know the CO and have for several years. I believe her to be a thoroughly nice and approachable person. I do not believe that word could or should EVER be used to describe her.

DegenerateNo1

AlwaysRight wrote: »

At the moment I cannot say whether it is reasonable or unreasonable because I do not have the full information. I'm sure, in time, if the correct routes are taken then I will and I will get back to you!

As for "coming off of it" - I'd love to, but I would prefer to stay civilized rather than sink to calling people "downright snotty ****"s.

In a sense you are hurling stuff at her when throw things like that around. Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't feel too good if you threw it at me. And maybe your a tough one who doesn't mind verbal abuse towards you, but it might be worth respecting other people...even just a little. She is a person.

Hi Kelly!

ULChieftain

constantg wrote: »

I think you should withdraw THAT comment immediately. I know the CO and have for several years. I believe her to be a thoroughly nice and approachable person. I do not believe that word could or should EVER be used to describe her.

Well that comment should be withdrawn or at least blanked out and that poster banned as I'm sure you can't go around calling everyone names on this.

As for if she is like that comment, ask her the next time you see her if she is; she'll get you to fill out a form, pay €2 and you might get the answer posted to you in a couple of weeks.

Judging from the ULFM thread and email correspondance, people can judge their own opinions.

wnolan1992

I like pandas....

Request for a thread title change to "ULFM Thread v3.0"

Jester252

€2 for admin of the metting notes
that could buy you a box of wedges in the shop with 30c left over
I know what I take

WinterBlizzard

The whole thing is such a joke

freyners

postings like attacking the CO calling her a downright snotty so and so is the reason the first thread was locked...and the reason the 2nd thread was locked also and the reason this thread will be locked too..
people are acting silly..theres two general rules to boards..dont be a dick and attack the post not the poster

I do think that there is transparency issues in relation to ULFM and i dont personally like the way kelly has come across in this..however this is an internet forum and its easy to be misrepresented in it. However this thread is following the pattern of the first one and until people can do this in a reasonable manner (i.e not calling people snotty cnúts) these threads will continue to be locked i reckon and IMO, deserve to be

John_Smith123

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I want to know what Kelly O Brien is trying to hide.

This is no way for a student representative to behave.

somehow i dont think keith o neill would have been as sneaky and underhand. shame she didnt mention those personality traits when i voted for her. you can be damn sure keith would have made a proper go of the radio as well, not the miserable farce it is at the moment. and also kelly's comment about the listenership value resetting everyday is false. that 51 record high was set last week during censored. the mean listenership outside that show ranges from 3 - 15.
not only is she sneaky she's also a liar/ignorant of how her radio listernship is recorded.

I don't think we would have any sort of radio station if kieth was elected based on his manifesto: http://www.skynet.ie/~keitho/no1/for/communications/manifesto.php

Is it just me or had Kelly gone out of her way to make sure her manifesto can't be found? Not linked on SU website, her campaign site is down and not on her campaign facebook either. Odd.

Anyone else notice that to date this semester there has only been one news item posted on the SU news feed? http://ulsu.ie/news

Hmm.. A below par, not listened to, radio station versus as it happens news and information... pity I went with the writer thinking she could communicate. Well you live and learn.

She was able to organise a launch party.. pity CO != CSO.

reunion

freyners wrote: »

postings like attacking the CO calling her a downright snotty so and so is the reason the first thread was locked...and the reason the 2nd thread was locked also and the reason this thread will be locked too..
people are acting silly..theres two general rules to boards..dont be a dick and attack the post not the poster

I do think that there is transparency issues in relation to ULFM and i dont personally like the way kelly has come across in this..however this is an internet forum and its easy to be misrepresented in it. However this thread is following the pattern of the first one and until people can do this in a reasonable manner (i.e not calling people snotty cnúts) these threads will continue to be locked i reckon and IMO, deserve to be

FYI Kelly hasn't posted in this thread so no one is attacking the poster in this case.

I do feel someone is getting way too aggresive about this but with money being taken from clubs and societies to pay off the loss making ulsu services, people can be quite annoyed. Particularly when an ulsu service won't disclose anything and is acting like a dictatorship. Kelly mightn't be here next year but whatever mess that is left will be, particularly the bill.

I don't think this should be locked, I think certain posters need to be told to calm down and maybe given a day break from boards. This is an issue, anyone on campus currently should know about the ulsu shop and the money taken from clubs and societies.

Change needs to happen to transparency and it can start with ULFM. The su needs to know students care about transparency.

WinterBlizzard

With this crazy new method of getting the minutes, do staff and exec members also have to go through this silly process? Or is it reserved for us lowly students?

freyners

reunion wrote: »

FYI Kelly hasn't posted in this thread so no one is attacking the poster in this case.

I do feel someone is getting way too aggresive about this but with money being taken from clubs and societies to pay off the loss making ulsu services, people can be quite annoyed. Particularly when an ulsu service won't disclose anything and is acting like a dictatorship. Kelly mightn't be here next year but whatever mess that is left will be, particularly the bill.

I don't think this should be locked, I think certain posters need to be told to calm down and maybe given a day break from boards. This is an issue, anyone on campus currently should know about the ulsu shop and the money taken from clubs and societies.

Change needs to happen to transparency and it can start with ULFM. The su needs to know students care about transparency.

your right that kelly hasnt posted here but there has been abuse here from what she has posted earlier....same thing in my book

i agree with your post, actually mine is phrased a bit badly....if people are willing to discuss this in a calm manner then the thread should stay open, its an important issue and one id like to discuss..my fear is that it will start going in the same way as the 1st thread..which was rightly locked.

MrsStuffings

I'm not attacking Kelly, merely giving my opinion on the manner in which she is behaving. and yes, I do think that her behaviour is being snooty and cuntish. Putting roadblocks in the way so nobody can gain access to the minutes of the meetings, please don't pretend that's anything other than being a spiteful little so and so just because she feels aggrieved/annoyed at certain people. (or else she has something to hide)

It may sound nasty, but she hardly thinks this behaviour is going to get her plaudits and platitudes ?

WinterBlizzard

This whole thing is revolving around "guys stop insulting Kelly, she's wonderful", when in actual fact we should be discussing the complete lack of transparency of ULFM, which was set up for students and is being run by students. If my previous question is answered with the fact that staff/exec don't have to go through the gauntlet of crazy to get the minutes, then that's a form of discrimination in a way.

If something is set up for the benefit of students, and being run by students, why are we getting the short end of the stick?

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting things. In one way sure, some people may seem like they're slandering the name of Kelly O'Brien, when what's really going on is the fact that they're outraged by her behaviour and methods.

I think there needs to be a movement away from this back and forth insulting and a discussion into why the ridiculous lack of transparency exists within ULFM and what we as students can do to reverse this.

spurious

Very thin ice between some recent 'discussion' and out and out personal abuse of a named individual.

Some people may need a temporary ban to cool off if it continues.

Peteee

Guys calm it.

There's a definite personal abuse in here which I will deal with later.

reunion

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I'm not attacking Kelly, merely giving my opinion on the manner in which she is behaving. and yes, I do think that her behaviour is being snooty and cuntish. Putting roadblocks in the way so nobody can gain access to the minutes of the meetings, please don't pretend that's anything other than being a spiteful little so and so just because she feels aggrieved/annoyed at certain people. (or else she has something to hide)

It may sound nasty, but she hardly thinks this behaviour is going to get her plaudits and platitudes ?

Your behaviour isn't exactly the shining example to follow...

Actually it was the board that put those roadblocks in. Kelly wanted to give out the minutes (judging from her email) but the board decided against it.

From those emails and others, the board members seem to act independently of each other which is extremely unprofessional.

I do feel this entire situation could have been handled better by ULFM and a lot of anger is due to their unprofessional and immature behaviour.

Students have followed the constitution but the ULFM board haven't. They changed it (and then scrapped it) and have been becoming more secretive and exclusive with each passing day. They haven't represented students properly and the controversy this has created should highlight this.

As a student i actually feel alienated and don't ever want to invest time in ULFM due to the actions of the board and my representative in office. I currently would vote for a communications officer who wished to scrap ulfm.

I some people would like an apology from the board for their disgraceful behaviour in the last few weeks.

wnolan1992

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I'm not attacking Kelly, merely giving my opinion on the manner in which she is behaving. and yes, I do think that her behaviour is being snooty and cuntish. Putting roadblocks in the way so nobody can gain access to the minutes of the meetings, please don't pretend that's anything other than being a spiteful little so and so just because she feels aggrieved/annoyed at certain people. (or else she has something to hide)

You could phrase your displeasure better, calling her behaviour "cuntish" will inevitably cause a backlash, which will only cause the thread to descend into the same utter bullsh*t that happened in the last ULFM thread. (Unless that's what you want? Which I assume you don't.)

I'd like to know what people suspect they're hiding? What could they possibly be hiding from us in the high powered board meeting that will drastically effect the daily lives of us poor students?

I'd imagine that all that get's discussed in the board meetings is plans for competitions, how badly all involved in ULFM want to throw the current PC off the highest roof and other stuff related to the day to day running and development of the station.

There's a procedure in place to get the minutes. Has anybody followed it and been refused? We can argue all night about whether it's a reasonable process or not. If, after following the procedure set out, she still refuses to give the minutes, then yes, there's a problem.

Beruthiel

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I'm not attacking Kelly, merely giving my opinion on the manner in which she is behaving. and yes, I do think that her behaviour is being snooty and cuntish.

Do NOT come onto this website to abuse someone.
If you have a problem with an individual, go talk to them directly instead of using the internet.

Mods, if you see anything else like the above posted in this forum, please inform me so I can site ban.
Thanks,
B

Peteee

MrsStuffings has been banned for personal abuse.

Ginge Young

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I'd imagine that all that get's discussed in the board meetings is plans for competitions, how badly all involved in ULFM want to throw the current PC off the highest roof and other stuff related to the day to day running and development of the station.

Then explain to me why they can't be posted online?

People have requested via the old methods (which keep changing), and inevitably leaves it up to the board to deny anyone they want. There isn't even a process by which to appeal.

The point is I can get minutes to what I would call much more serious issues and meetings by a much easier process, yet we have to jump through this many hoops for ULFM?

I never thought I would find myself saying this, but it's either:

1: A power trip.
2: To one up certain posters on boards again.
3: They are hiding something.

I hope I'm wrong, but as you said yourself what can they be talking about that such a system is put in place, in which a student has to PAY for minutes of their radio station board of directors meetings.

wnolan1992

Ginge Young wrote: »

Then explain to me why they can't be posted online?

People have requested via the old methods (which keep changing), and inevitably leaves it up to the board to deny anyone they want. There isn't even a process by which to appeal.

The point is I can get minutes to what I would call much more serious issues and meetings by a much easier process, yet we have to jump through this many hoops for ULFM?

I never thought I would find myself saying this, but it's either:

1: A power trip.
2: To one up certain posters on boards again.
3: They are hiding something.

I hope I'm wrong, but as you said yourself what can they be talking about that such a system is put in place, in which a student has to PAY for minutes of their radio station board of directors meetings.

Probably 2 to be honest considering the amount of sh/te that's been posted on this forum over the past few weeks.

My point still stands though, jump through the hoops if you really care that deeply about the minutes, then you've every right to complain.

Fo0r what it's worth, the procedure is a bit OTT in my opinion, but I don't really envisage myself ever wanting to use it so meh.

I have my own views about why the requests under the old method were rejected, but posting them here would open a can of worms.

Ginge Young

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Probably 2 to be honest considering the amount of sh/te that's been posted on this forum over the past few weeks.

My point still stands though, jump through the hoops if you really care that deeply about the minutes, then you've every right to complain.

Fo0r what it's worth, the procedure is a bit OTT in my opinion, but I don't really envisage myself ever wanting to use it so meh.

I have my own views about why the requests under the old method were rejected, but posting them here would open a can of worms.

Very very very true. The reason however why I am worked up over it (and a request will probably be made for the minutes to just prove a point) is that these people serve the students, that is what they are there for. Kelly and each and every person who volunteered to be on the Board.

Putting in procedures to +1 anyone of the student body (if that is in fact why they were put in, maybe it wasn't, but taking that it could be) is a joke and mockery and makes the SU look terrible to the minority audience that uses boards. Yes, it is a minority, but does that really matter?

John_Smith123

Haters gonna hate

edanto

Wow. What a train wreck. Saw this on the main page, and the word 'censorship' got me interested in the thread.

What a total mess. What the hell is going to be in the minutes anyways, it will just be a few lines if you're lucky saying what decisions were made.

Makes me very glad I didn't get involved in student politics, the few union meetings I went to (not at UL) were mainly filled with contrary people bickering about this type of thing.

I can tell there's a legitimate gripe, but posting details on the busiest discussion forum in the country is possibly the worst way to try and solve a conflict.

Ginge Young

Haters may hate, but just to let you know a lot of the "haters" here are people who when motivated (it doesn't take much) can get stuff done and get stuff heard.

Jester252

Ginge Young wrote: »

Haters may hate, but just to let you know a lot of the "haters" here are people who when motivated (it doesn't take much) can get stuff done and get stuff heard.

Oh Snap

sceptre

MrsStuffings wrote: »

I understand Spectre and Petee are both long gone from UL now

You understand incorrectly.

Actually, given that the opener stated that threads are immediately locked, you understand that one incorrectly too. The most recent thread was locked after a few hours. The previous one stood for a few weeks and was locked after numerous moderator warnings were roundly ignored. Currently on the front page, I notice one thread on "Political allegiance of SU" and one on "ULSU Spar Shop". If threads critical of the SU are being locked immediately, as you say, then we're pretty damned slack about it.

I have a bias against idiocy and against abuse. I'm totally biased against both of those. I'm firmly and repeatedly on the record on that. Other than that, well, I'm disinclined to be biased as there are better things to do with time. There are, unfortunately, plenty of people who are biased against a lack of these things. Some of them post here. That's unfortunate. Happily there are those who aren't.

This came up on my facebook page (well, someone called me a killjoy and was concerned "ABOUT THE LULZ"). Obviously plenty of people aren't worried about the lulz and we're not here for lulz but anyhoo... This is part of the response I gave:

sceptre, elsewhere on the Internet wrote:

There isn't enough criticism of the SU (and I repeatedly said that when I was in the SU) but there's a middle ground between macro-complaining ("the SU does nothing") and micro-complaining ("I hate how messy the X Officer's desk is") and it's that precise middle ground that constitutes useful complaining. I love the middle ground of informed complaining. Those guys are useful.

Calling someone (anyone) "(see you next Tuesday)ish" rather demonstrates the problem faced with reasonable discussions between reasonable people anywhere in society but particularly here. There are plenty of reasonable people here too, thank the cosmos. Those that aren't should really examine their own motivations and behaviour as that sort of idiocy won't be tolerated at any point.

As I've said myself, there's a legitimate gripe. But we still don't tolerate rampant idiocy on this forum.

Oh, on a non-moderator note, I really dislike the use of "haters gonna hate". While it can be true and while the biblical notion of removing the plank from your own eye before examining the speck in the other guy's is quite a good one (lack of public availability of accounts information is unfortunately, well, rampant in the SU building and it shouldn't be so. Though at least the main SU administration accounts (one-third of capitation) are available online, which is a good example that should be followed) and while there are people who will get on a hobbyhorse while most of the world realises that the horse they're on may not really be the problematic one, "haters gonna hate" must have originally been coined by someone who watched too much early-morning My Sweet Sixteen. It's not a get out of jail free for redemption putdown card.

Sid_Justice

moving on from mrsstuffings use of the c word and the frailties of the mods what has kelly got to say on this?

can someone just explain the rational for the cryptic process other than stopping time wasters. she hardly accuses keith young of being a time waster.

John_Smith123

My last post may or may not have been a reference to a post a Ms Dawg previously posted. That's for you to decide.

Tea_Bag

subbing on mobile..

CJKeane

Hello all,

We have met formally over the past couple hours and have decided to remove the procedure to obtain the minutes/agendas from our board meetings and make them freely available on the ULSU website under the ULFM page (see link). We will release future agendas/minutes when they are passed by the development board in this same location. At the moment there are only minutes for two of our meetings as they have not been transcribed on to the computer yet.

We as a board are striving to achieve total transparency within ULFM. We concede that mistakes have been made regarding the dealings through Boards.ie and we will do our best to ensure these mistakes are not repeated. We promise you that, as a group, we are doing our best to achieve the highest standards for our fledgeling radio station.

We would like to thank contributors for their constructive criticism. We are trying to take as much as we can on board but, as we are all students, time constraints affect us all. Please be patient with our young station as we are all learning, and are bound to have our hiccups.

Signed,
Conor Keane
Production Manager ULFM

http://ulsu.ie/officers/communications/ulfm

Sid_Justice

what a victory for the student body. great to see the SU and ULFM finally succumb to the interests of the students. i wlll let mrsstuffings know and thank her for her hard work bring this injustice to an end.

J_E

Sid_Justice wrote: »

what a victory for the student body. great to see the SU and ULFM finally succumb to the interests of the students. i wlll let mrsstuffings know and thank her for her hard work bring this injustice to an end.

Come off it...it was more of a cheap, abusive stab at the members more than hard work to be honest.

Sid_Justice

minutes wrote:

Kelly & Colm tried to stick up the foam with sticky tape

minutes wrote:

Programming: Leah was not present to speak about it

so programming isn't really been looked at that closely

reunion

Conor, that was the best response from any ULFM board of directors so far.

I request that this thread be locked for a few days/a week to avoid pointless posts.

Except for an AGM, I don't think there is any more issues with ULFM (none that boards can productivily sort anyway).

I would like to see the new SU constitution, the one with class reps removed and what not on the ULSU site (the 2009 one is available).