ULSU EGM

reunion

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Don't just rant on boards about it. Submit it as a motion for discussion. To paraphrase from Paddy's blog: "There's no good bitching on boards, unless you make your voice heard it's pointless." <- terrible paraphrase but you get the point.

It's that type of suggestion that could help break up the clique in the SU, a motion similar to "You can only be on the committee of one soc" or something.

Actually boards has gotten quite a bit done, in particular relating to ULFM. You can certainly purpose such a motion, but the first question would be why? it could serve to hurt some clubs and societies particularly when every AGM/EGM are held at different times.

For clubs and socs councel you are required to have unique committee members there anyway (can't sign in for 2 clubs or societies). It is an interesting thought to limit the number of clubs and societies a person can be on the committee of. Above a certain number and that individual could be hurting themselves academicly.

reunion

Skyrim wrote: »

Can you write it down on a piece of paper and give it in to the SU? Just in case, i can't get off coop.

You can submit it to the clubs and societies exec and they will review it and come up with a proposal to councel or else you can email paul lee or liz gabbett and ask for it to be put on the agenda.

However if it's just a one liner and nobody can fully explain the thinking behind it, it unlikely to go anywhere.

Skyrim

I have no problem submitting a proposal, may even do it tomorrow, but i hope there isn't some long winded approach to submitting it.

wnolan1992

reunion wrote: »

Actually boards has gotten quite a bit done, in particular relating to ULFM. You can certainly purpose such a motion, but the first question would be why? it could serve to hurt some clubs and societies particularly when every AGM/EGM are held at different times.

For clubs and socs councel you are required to have unique committee members there anyway (can't sign in for 2 clubs or societies). It is an interesting thought to limit the number of clubs and societies a person can be on the committee of. Above a certain number and that individual could be hurting themselves academicly.

I wasn't knocking boards, but given the short notice of the EGM, talking about something here probably won't get it raised at the EGM for discussion.

Polar Ice

reunion wrote: »

hurting themselves academicly.

Spelling the word academically wrong might also harm academically :pac:

reunion

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I wasn't knocking boards, but given the short notice of the EGM, talking about something here probably won't get it raised at the EGM for discussion.

Well if it's clubs and societies related it has to go to clubs and societies councel.

The SU EGM is only appropriate for non-clubs and societies related SU activities.

For clubs and socs councel you can submit a one liner if you want but it would be struck down near instantly. If you can't attend, you would need some explanation for the reasoning behind it.

Polar Ice wrote: »

Spelling the word academically wrong might also harm academically :pac:

I'm hopefully highlighting the need for a spellchecker on boards

Reiver

Just read Paddy's blog there, only been on it once before but very impressed with his honesty. Feel a bit guilty for being on co-op now and not to be around for this EGM, it looks like it could affect stuff for a good few years to come!

canned_ulkc

I was going to have a launch at the clique perception but I'll hold back and only say that to label the SU as a clique is to dismiss the entire set-up and devalue the work that does get done.....

To the EGM.... Whether the 2 positions being proposed to be abolished are to go or not, information should be out there NOW about where the duties of these positions will be distributed in a clear and concise manner. That simply doesn't seem to be out there yet.....

Fishooks12

canned_ulkc wrote: »

I was going to have a launch at the clique perception but I'll hold back and only say that to label the SU as a clique is to dismiss the entire set-up and devalue the work that does get done.....

This may be true but I no plenty of students who have little or no dealing with the SU because of this clique perception which, lets face it, exists to an extent.

wnolan1992

Fishooks12 wrote: »

This may be true but I no plenty of students who have little or no dealing with the SU because of this clique perception which, lets face it, exists to an extent.

Well I know tonnes of students like this. There're what... 10,000 UL students? And I bet there'll be a struggle to meet the quorum of 200 on Wednesday...

Some are put off by the clique nature, which can seem overbearing at first, but once you get that first step in the door (which isn't that hard) you don't notice it anymore.

Some on the other hand, just don't give a fuck, and will only take notice of what the SU does when it affects their drinking time. [/cynicism]

Fishooks12

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Well I know tonnes of students like this. There're what... 10,000 UL students? And I bet there'll be a struggle to meet the quorum of 200 on Wednesday...

Some are put off by the clique nature, which can seem overbearing at first, but once you get that first step in the door (which isn't that hard) you don't notice it anymore.

Some on the other hand, just don't give a fuck, and will only take notice of what the SU does when it affects their drinking time. [/cynicism]

If the SU can't get 200 Wednesday does not speak volumes in itself?

The student body as a whole can't take all the blame. The SU should make a real attempt to reconnect with the whole student body next year.

wnolan1992

Fishooks12 wrote: »

If the SU can't get 200 Wednesday does not speak volumes in itself?

The student body as a whole can't take all the blame. The SU should make a real attempt to reconnect with the whole student body next year.

True I guess... but what exactly can they do to "reconnect"? You can't force people to talk to the sabbats like.

---

Wow. Just wow.

Kelly O'Brien(CO) Facebook wrote:

So it turns out that Paddy Rockett deemed it necessary to delete myself and all other sabbats as friends on facebook. Great to see the maturity of a work colleague aint it? Thats right little child, stamp your feet, see if anyone even notices.

Wow.

and for good measure ->

Skyrim

wnolan1992 wrote: »

True I guess... but what exactly can they do to "reconnect"? You can't force people to talk to the sabbats like.

---

Wow. Just wow.



Wow.

and for good measure ->

Why put something like that public? Seriously, it should be kept between themselves. I don't know what's going on internally but that is strange. Feel sorry for Paddy tbh.

wnolan1992

Skyrim wrote: »

Why put something like that public? Seriously, it should be kept between themselves. I don't know what's going on internally but that is strange. Feel sorry for Paddy tbh.

The whole thing seems to just be getting messier and messier...

Childish behaviour on all sides here imho.

Skyrim

Sad to hear. Could they just call a truce? Don't know anything about what happened but it's childish. Would put you more off the su in general. I was impressed with Paddy's latest blog. Has me yearning for last year's team.

joey12

Absolute childish behavior from the lot of them, facebook is a private matter they have not elected to talk about they're facebook's.

The SU's reputation has been destroyed in my opinion and I'll only be delighted to see the end of this fiasco. But saying that Paddy's blog did seem very honest and it put things in perspective.

Skyrim

Do my best to head to the egm, even if the cliqueness grates me at times, do all the sabbats have to go to that?

wnolan1992

joey12 wrote: »

Absolute childish behavior from the lot of them, facebook is a private matter they have not elected to talk about they're facebook's.

The SU's reputation has been destroyed in my opinion and I'll only be delighted to see the end of this fiasco. But saying that Paddy's blog did seem very honest and it put things in perspective.

To be fair, it was posted on her personal page, and she's entitled to give her opinion on anything on that page, just like Derek promotes FF events. Their Facebook's are their own and have nothing to do with their official work.

Skyrim wrote: »

Do my best to head to the egm, even if the cliqueness grates me at times, do all the sabbats have to go to that?

I'm assuming they all have to, yes.

A pretty sparse agenda, only two motions up for discussion.

J_E

This whole thing has only alienated the student body even more, which can't be a good thing given the generally indifferent attitude of a lot of students towards the SU.

mayo_lad

wnolan1992 wrote: »

To be fair, it was posted on her personal page, and she's entitled to give her opinion on anything on that page, just like Derek promotes FF events. Their Facebook's are their own and have nothing to do with their official work.



I'm assuming they all have to, yes.

A pretty sparse agenda, only two motions up for discussion.

yes all sabatical officers have to attend the EGM . if they do not go they will be deamed to have resinged there postition

Reiver

Wow is the only word to put there wnolan1992!

Can't help but be reminded of this!

Even if the personality conflict has gotten that rough, you would think it would be kept private so the SU can at least present a united front and work through this. Bit of a shock!

wnolan1992

Reiver wrote: »

Wow is the only word to put there wnolan1992!

Can't help but be reminded of this!

Even if the personality conflict has gotten that rough, you would think it would be kept private so the SU can at least present a united front and work through this. Bit of a shock!

All illusion of a united front kinda died with Paddy's latest blog...

Out of interest, if a sabbat does resign, what happens? Is there a bi-election or do they just divvy up the duties among the remaining sabbats and soldier on until June?

SarahBeep!

Bi-election

New_User1

I'd like to direct you all to a thread I just started. It's called "the SU is f***ed" and I cant even believe some of the things I found out this week.

Jester252

I get that it is her own facebook but I find what both of them did was two faced
Paddy removing someone as fb friend instead of talling too them
Kelly then posting on fb about paddy
I dont know the whole story
I would also like to point out that Kelly should have some exp about posting on the internet

Gael23

This thread and the other one re Paddy Rockett just go to prove that the SU structure is rotten to the core. The whole thing needs a massive shake up if it is to function

Ginge Young

The EGM is going to be interesting I think. I will be attending, as I hope other students will. While the EGM is this week, on a side note, the Clubs and Societies Final Report will be presented a week after, just so people don't forget that one ;-)

wnolan1992

ryanf1 wrote: »

This thread and the other one re Paddy Rockett just go to prove that the SU structure is rotten to the core. The whole thing needs a massive shake up if it is to function

Very true. Something's really not right atm.

Ginge Young wrote: »

The EGM is going to be interesting I think. I will be attending, as I hope other students will. While the EGM is this week, on a side note, the Clubs and Societies Final Report will be presented a week after, just so people don't forget that one ;-)

Very interesting indeed... someone's got some serious s'plainin' to do!

reunion

It is common knowledge (or I'm lead to believe it is from the working group report, posts on sabbats blogs and facebook pages, etc) the su is in financial difficulty and sabbats (previous ones and current) regularly do not stick to their budget and exceed it, requiring the ULSU services to bail them out which kinda worked until the ULSU services didn't make the profit it required

Paddy's blog post (official SU blog) confirms he doesn't do the job outlined in the SU constitution that he ran for. He should have resigned instantly if he felt he would not be able to fufill his role as CSO and not decide he wouldn't do half the job students elected him to do.

Regarding Kelly's actions on facebook (not official source SU source of information), this is her own personal facebook similar to Dereks posts about FF (or something along those lines, there is a previous thread).

[QUOTE=Kelly O'Brien(CO) Facebook] So it turns out that Paddy Rockett deemed it necessary to delete myself and all other sabbats as friends on facebook. Great to see the maturity of a work colleague aint it? Thats right little child, stamp your feet, see if anyone even notices.[/QUOTE]

The first half of the post, anyone can determine as paddy's profile and friend list is public. The second half is Kelly's over reaction (probably taking a de-friending as personal despite the fact she has defriended people previously) as seen in previous threads here on boards



On a side note, if the two positions are removed (CSO should be removed as it was created in 2006 and isn't needed especially with a full-time paid event manager, communications is probably up for debate) what happens the offices?

I know Paddy is in what was previously the president's office (quite a large office!). I would love to see the PSU (formally PSA) president moved back into the SU. The other office would be used for the coop student who deals with the paper?

Also you can submit an apology for the EGM, so sabbats won't be fired if they don't attend.

TheSpecialOne

Can we propose to remove the lot of them? Christ ULSU is a laughing stock at this stage.