Referendum null and void

lithiumoxide

I think FEE should try to understand how referendum voting works before launching into a criticism.

http://free-education.info/dcu-students-union-disrespect-democratic-result/

myk

I think the SU should learn how voting works first.

I think FEE have a very legitimate complaint. They spent time and effort working on the campaign. They won under the rules laid down by the electoral committee. But due to a very stupid error that wasn't spotted by the returning officer, electoral committee or union council the vote is invalid.

If I was FEE I'd be asking for my campaign costs to be reimbursed by the SU. How much money was wasted by the SU on this fiasco?

In any case FEE can probably take comfort from the fact that in the absence of a valid referendum then previous Union policy on education funding should stand. I know the position back when I was in college in 2004 was that the Union was for fully free fees, abolition of the reg fee and raising of the grant- all to be funded through general exchequer resources. I don't suppose anyone knows if that policy has been changed since then by Union Council?

lithiumoxide

myk wrote: »

I think the SU should learn how voting works first.

Good point.

Kavrocks

It was a waste of money in the first place but this has just made a farce of the whole thing. As if DCU's SU campaigning for any one of these would have any bearing on the government's decision and after this debacle they'd be mad to listen to them.

Taxpayer's can be assured their money is being well spent.

lithiumoxide

I think it was more just to decide on an official stance, rather than actual campaigning, but I could be wrong.

sharpish

It was a bit of turkeys voting for Christmas ballot paper. Clearly students would vote for free education.

Plus a referendum is usually two options not five

or you could do a two part ballot paper, one part about should things be kept the same or not (giving the SU a clear mandate on what to fight for) and one about preferred alternative funding system ( giving the SU a clear mandate on what to bargain for)

You'd think a university with a Law and Gov faculty they'd have gotten someone look through the ballot paper

myk

Kavrocks wrote: »

It was a waste of money in the first place but this has just made a farce of the whole thing. As if DCU's SU campaigning for any one of these would have any bearing on the government's decision and after this debacle they'd be mad to listen to them.

Taxpayer's can be assured their money is being well spent.

I disagree strongly. The SU is set up to campaign on behalf of students. It shouldn't just be an entertainment company subsidised with student money. Getting the student body to decide on what form of funding was a good idea in principle. The way it was implemented was completely cack-handed though.

Does anyone know if the returning officer and/or electoral committee is resigning? Or will it be the same team who managed this that will be running the exec elections and any follow up referendum?

polkabunny

myk wrote: »

Does anyone know if the returning officer and/or electoral committee is resigning? Or will it be the same team who managed this that will be running the exec elections and any follow up referendum?

Nobody will be resigning, mistakes were made by the SU, by the Returning Officer and the Electoral Committee. Ed Leamy has apologised, and Sean Rooney apologised at the last Class Rep Council.
Steps are going to be taken for any future referendums, it is planned that it won't be fully discussed in Class Rep Council like the last one (where everyone was eager to move on and away from it). We're hoping to set up a forum for the wording of the next referendum, and no doubt the constitution will be left close to hand.

As to FEE DCU, Derek McKenna is a class rep and is partly responsible for the referendum. It was left to Class Rep Council to look after the referendum, and we made a mistake with it. We're human, we couldn't help it, and we would have preferred to avoid it