SU elections (Full time and part time) **MOD NOTE** POST #1 and #26

Ruire

Squeeonline wrote: »

You're assuming that everyone lives in the centre of town and not out in Knocknacara, Barna, or further afield.

Actually, no, I'm speaking as someone who lives out past Rahoon. It's far easier to get to Salthill from these places than it is to get into town. I know City Bus at least do a bus between town and Knocknacara that passes through Salthill, and the others pass close by.

Your solution is basically to go the effort of going further away from Salthill to get to Salthill, taking more time and costing more money, for the sake of people who've never heard of timetables or Google Maps.

Ruire

Also, FEE just had an email forwarded on to all English students in one of the modules.

This HAS got to be illegal campaigning.

Hi,


Please could you forward this on to all registered NUIG students you may have on your mailing list.


The NUIG Students' Union elections take place this week Thursday 8th March. Voting can be done on campus, in person, by presenting your student ID or alternatively you can register online at www.su.nuigalway.ie (Registration for online voting closes on Tuesday so please register as soon as possible if you choose to vote online)


Free Education for Everyone (FEE) has put forward 3 candidates for 3 different positions on the Students' Union. They are:


Will O'Brien for President -- https://www.facebook.com/Will4President


Evelyn Fennelly for Education Officer -- https://www.facebook.com/EvelynForEducation


Sarah McCarthy for Welfare Officer -- https://www.facebook.com/Sarah4Welfare


I urge you please to seriously consider Will, Evelyn and Sarah for the various positions mentioned above as I personally feel that they are the strongest and most experienced candidates.


If you have any questions for the candidates please feel free to post on their respective election pages. Please also feel free to spread the word to any NUIG Registered students.


With thanks,


FEE Galway

Lockstep

Really? Thought this was banned: when I ran for the SU we were told we couldn't use students saved data such as emailing through blackboard

Raging_Ninja

bildo wrote: »

It means exactly what is says. Currently SU Commercial services is hardly answerable to the Union at all. There have been a number of issues this year where the Exec has made decisions on certain aspects of their operations which have been completely ignored.
I feel that there are a number of changes that need to be made to a broad range of commercial services which I do not feel are possible under the current structures.
I would like to set up an iniative, a council of some sort where students can have a say in how the shops and cafes etc run by the Union are operated. It seems that employees of the Union in many cases have more say over the running of services than elected student reps.

Currently the SU President is the Director of Commercial services and I simply do not think this is represented in the way Commercial services operates.

I would like to see this changed so that actual students are more in control of how their Union and the commercial services it provides is run.


The other points are not in my manifesto so I will not comment on them suffice to say that a majority of services here on campus are not funded by the SU anyway but by the University governing body.

The commercial interests were brought in to the college bar (2003/2004ish) because when the SU were running the place it had been running a deficit for the decade previous to that. Is it still making a profit?

Squeeonline

Ruire wrote: »

Actually, no, I'm speaking as someone who lives out past Rahoon. It's far easier to get to Salthill from these places than it is to get into town. I know City Bus at least do a bus between town and Knocknacara that passes through Salthill, and the others pass close by.

Your solution is basically to go the effort of going further away from Salthill to get to Salthill, taking more time and costing more money, for the sake of people who've never heard of timetables or Google Maps.

I dont have a "solution". The organised buses are not mandatory, nor do you have to sign up in advance for them (at least a couple years ago you didnt) so if the weather is nice you can stroll down to Salthill if that's where you are.

Anyway, it hardly matters much.

Ruire

Squeeonline wrote: »

I dont have a "solution". The organised buses are not mandatory, nor do you have to sign up in advance for them (at least a couple years ago you didnt) so if the weather is nice you can stroll down to Salthill if that's where you are.

Anyway, it hardly matters much.

Solution? What exactly is the problem?

If you live west of the Corrib, you have roughly the same difficulty getting to Leisureland as you do getting to campus. If you're up by the likes of Greenfields, you can get a bus near campus anyway.

If you live east of the Corrib, Eyre Square. It's certainly about as far away from everything up by Menlo as campus is.

Lockstep

Did anyone go to the hustings?

Ruire

Lockstep wrote: »

Did anyone go to the hustings?

No, but apparently it was utterly vicious. Only FEE and Dami turned up.

Much table thumping and character assassination against candidates and SU officers.

Manco

This hasn't gone away, you know. http://www.facebook.com/events/357958784227424/

joeKel73

According to the current SIN "Paul claims that by the end of this academic year, BizSoc’s bank account will have increased twelve fold."

Twelve fold... so 2048 times what it was. So if it was €1000, it is now over €2million. Good work!

Ruire

J o e wrote: »

According to the current SIN "Paul claims that by the end of this academic year, BizSoc’s bank account will have increased twelve fold."

Twelve fold... so 2048 times what it was. So if it was €1000, it is now over €2million. Good work!

twelvefold definition: adjective 1. having twelve parts 2. having twelve times as much

12x, not 12²x.

You fail maths forever.

carolmarx

To be perfectly honest, and not that anyone cares I personally find Fennelly's campaign the most annoying. I love how she plays up her involvement in societies, neglecting to mention that she's actually the auditor of LifeSoc..A society that's wearing thin with many students.

joeKel73

Interesting... I always thought two fold was 2x. Three fold was 2x that. Three fold was 2x that. Like paper un"folding".

Ruire wrote: »

12x, not 12²x.

You fail maths forever.

12²x=144x. We both fail.

Back on topic - good to see online voting becoming an option this year!

Ficheall

Lockstep wrote: »

Did anyone go to the hustings?

I went for the first hour or so but then had to leave. Worst hustings I've been to.
The only candidates present were the FEE musketeers and Dami and Tatiana.
The entire business, or what I saw of it, was woeful.
This evening's display would almost drive one to run a RON campaign if one didn't have work to be doing.

Squeeonline

I remember only a couple years ago one candidate skipped out on hustings all together to go and canvass (read: harass) the kids in corrib village. Probably a wise move since everyone is hustings has already made up their minds.

Ficheall

Aye, I ken - it appears that five people did that this year.
Probably just as well, as it appeared to be largely a FEE cheerleading exercise.

Lockstep

Yeah, I heard two candidates saying they weren't going to bother as they felt it would just be them being heckled by FEE. This led to other candidates feeling if some candidates were spending the evening canvassing, they'd need to do the same.

Its a wise enough move anyway, I always went to hustings before as I found them great craic but nearly everyone there already has their mind made up.

Any particular comments on the hustings from anyone who attended?

bildo

Very disappointed at hustings last night. I think it was very bad form of the candidates who didn;t bother their arses turning up, it shows a lack of accountability and willingless to engage with the student body.
I also thought that there was a very clear agenda by the vast majority of the people who attended and the whole thing appeared as a bit of a poor attempt at FEE lynch mob.
There was very little engagement and questions that deal with character and policy, especially in the "Presidential debate" which consisted of myself debating with a peice of paper.

Very uncool in my opinion. I was very well prepared for a real engaging debate and was looking forward to comparing policies and manifestos but what it turned into was a glorified lecture shoutout to my campaign team and running mates, some of the SU exec and a large body of my opposition.

Very poor show. While I commend Lit & Deb for hosting the event at such short notice, I feel that the SU could have done a LOT more to promote it and should have.
I also feel that the chair of the "debate" was far from impartial and insisted on asking a number of very loaded questions specifically to FEE candidates which was not on.
He was openly criticised by myself, another member of Lit&Deb and a former auditor of NUI Maynooth Lit&Deb society for this.

I have to say I feel a lot of the event seemed very fishy, especially the very notable lack of candidates who bothered to attend and the incredibly FEE-centric line of questions coming from the right of the house.

I hope people can appreciate that I actually turned up and welcomed and answered questions about myself, the FEE campaign and my policies whereas my opponent and many other candidates did not.

Fooker

Could someone clear something up, did Paul Curley repeat a year? Seems to be a year missing from what I read of his experience I think?

leeroybrown

About time the candidates abandoned the hustings. They've been an irrelevant waste of time for years and most people who turn up to them are a member of a campaign, have already made up their minds or are there purely for what little entertainment is on offer.

With regard to specific targeted questions against specific groups/campaigns, that's happened in every hustings I can remember and those who have a problem with it should grow a thicker skin!

Ficheall

bildo wrote: »

the whole thing appeared as a bit of a poor attempt at FEE lynch mob.

I got the impression that the audience consisted almost exclusively of FEE people.
They were certainly making the most noise.

bildo wrote: »

the "Presidential debate" which consisted of myself debating with a peice of paper.

Did you win?

bildo wrote: »

and a large body of my opposition.

BS.

bildo wrote: »

insisted on asking a number of very loaded questions specifically to FEE candidates which was not on.

3 of the 5 speakers were FEE - so that's hardly unusual...

bildo

Ficheall wrote: »

3 of the 5 speakers were FEE - so that's hardly unusual...

It is highly improper for a chair of a formal, unbiased debate to act in this manner.

Doctor_Socks

Fooker wrote: »

Could someone clear something up, did Paul Curley repeat a year? Seems to be a year missing from what I read of his experience I think?

Curley repeated a year, doesn't make him any less of a candidate though in my opinion. As much as I hate the SU elections every year I still take the time to look at candidates and I would rather Curley to the other SU president candidate. I know the current Welfare officer, Brian Grant, spoke quite highly of Curley last year when he was running for Education officer.

TheCosmicFrog

Doctor_Socks wrote: »

I know the current Welfare officer, Brian Grant, spoke quite highly of Curley last year when he was running for Education officer.

Curley ran for President last year.

IheartGOW

I was told by two individuals today that they were verbally assaulted by fee canvassers. Once while canvassing for Kitt, the other was abused after hustings last night. Both times the aggressor was the same. Two guesses for who it was!! complaints are being lodged
Also i noticed a few posters got ripped down last night. it looked targeted too. two of allens posters were about two thirds ripped off the poster kiosk beside the concourse. don't know ho did that though
This kind of thing is out of order and totally anti democratic.

By the way, if the fee candidate for education s auditor for life soc and the fee candidate for welfare is trying to get free morning after pill why are they running mates? seems like selling out your principles for votes to me (on behalf of the education officer) and disrespect for running mates morals (on behalf of the welfare officer, who is clueless by the way). would be quite scared if either of them managed to get in TBH.

Allen is the most experienced IMHO and seems to be the only one with a clue in welfare. Stitt looks good for education was talking to him and seems to be a sound guy with his head screwed on.
Then again these are only my opinions not sure about president yet might just RON it.

Lockstep

bildo wrote: »

Very disappointed at hustings last night. I think it was very bad form of the candidates who didn;t bother their arses turning up, it shows a lack of accountability and willingless to engage with the student body.
I also thought that there was a very clear agenda by the vast majority of the people who attended and the whole thing appeared as a bit of a poor attempt at FEE lynch mob.
There was very little engagement and questions that deal with character and policy, especially in the "Presidential debate" which consisted of myself debating with a peice of paper.

That's pretty much the norm for hustings. I dunno if you've been to any before but it's always people who show up with their minds made up and to ask tough questions to other candidates.

bildo wrote: »

Very poor show. While I commend Lit & Deb for hosting the event at such short notice, I feel that the SU could have done a LOT more to promote it and should have.

To be fair, it was well organised at short notice. Normally PDS organise hustings but didn't this year and the event was organised literally the day before the event. With Connolly away on personal business, Grant and Healy running the election committee (combined with their own workloads) and the event organised at the last minute, I don't see much else that could have been done, especially with the college posterboards already saturated with posters for the elections.

bildo wrote: »

I also feel that the chair of the "debate" was far from impartial and insisted on asking a number of very loaded questions specifically to FEE candidates which was not on.

The chair always asks loaded questions, that's their job. That FEE made up the majority of the candidates (including Tatiana who claims to be a member of FEE) means they're well up for more questioning than anyone else.

bildo wrote: »

He was openly criticised by myself, another member of Lit&Deb and a former auditor of NUI Maynooth Lit&Deb society for this.

To be fair, all three members of FEE.

bildo wrote: »

I have to say I feel a lot of the event seemed very fishy, especially the very notable lack of candidates who bothered to attend and the incredibly FEE-centric line of questions coming from the right of the house.

I hope people can appreciate that I actually turned up and welcomed and answered questions about myself, the FEE campaign and my policies whereas my opponent and many other candidates did not.[/QUOTE]
Again, there was a reason for this. Two candidates felt they'd be just heckled and didn't see the point in going only to talk to voters who already had their minds made up. I disagree with this logic but can understand it. Even more understandable is at least 3 other voters who didnt see the point in attending if other candidates were going to be out canvassing, better to hit up voters at the doors instead of 30 or so students who were already supporting candidates.

Hustings mean feck all anyway, otherwise Conor Keane, Conor Kelly/Conor Stitt and Emmet/Joe Loughnane would have sailed into offic laest year.

Fooker wrote: »

Could someone clear something up, did Paul Curley repeat a year? Seems to be a year missing from what I read of his experience I think?

Yup but this shouldn't factor into the job he wants to do. I know people who've failed the year for personal reasons or even ones who just had a tough year academically. I wouldn't vote for someone on this basis (except possible for Education)

IheartGOW wrote: »

I was told by two individuals today that they were verbally assaulted by fee canvassers. Once while canvassing for Kitt, the other was abused after hustings last night. Both times the aggressor was the same. Two guesses for who it was!! complaints are being lodged

To be fair, it's not just FEE. One candidate was standing with a canvasser as I walked past them (in an opposing candidate's tshirt) and the canvasser pretended to spit on me. Stopped to engage with them and was told that those who were born and educated abroad have no excuse for not knowing Irish (which I found borderline xenophobic)
The candidate themself was sound but some canvassers are just dicks. Bring it up with the candidate though, I'm sure they don't want obnoxious bollockses canvassing for them and if they do, it just does them damage.

hokeypokey

By the way, if the fee candidate for education s auditor for life soc and the fee candidate for welfare is trying to get free morning after pill why are they running mates? seems like selling out your principles for votes to me (on behalf of the education officer) and disrespect for running mates morals (on behalf of the welfare officer, who is clueless by the way). would be quite scared if either of them managed to get in TBH.

From what I gather she is against abortions and not contraception. Neither is she a loony bin religious nut etc... I think.

There's no candidate for me that I would have much confidence in, they seem to be either in it for themselves as careerists or not have the capablility to do a good job or blinkered left-wing radicals...

Cathal O

Questioned some of the candidate today, especially in welfare. I was generally pleased apart from when I questioned one of the candidates - sarah mccarthy, about a relatively basic proposal of hers. Promising free tea and coffee before exams to students. Now im no expert on tea making but lets take this relatively unimportant part of a manifesto which i used to judge her. Firstly 15,000 student with , lets say at a minimum of 3 modules per semester, so 6 exams per year, at a minimum.
6 x 15000 =90000 cups of tea coffee. Now lets say, at a minimum, a cup of coffee/tea, from a wholesaler costs 40 cent, this is pureely minimalism including electricity costs, milk, sugar, cups etc.
.40 x 90000 = 36.000

This candidate is proposing to waste 30,000 on cups of tea a year....if she cant think this most basic concept through, how could she deal with the more intrinsic proposals, needless to say she had no answer to the question and is still one of her manifesto plans

MissMoppet

Cathal O wrote: »

Questioned some of the candidate today, especially in welfare. I was generally pleased apart from when I questioned one of the candidates - sarah mccarthy, about a relatively basic proposal of hers. Promising free tea and coffee before exams to students. Now im no expert on tea making but lets take this relatively unimportant part of a manifesto which i used to judge her. .

The Chaplaincy already does this after 8am mass for anyone. You don't have to go to mass to have it. Around 30 people a day roughly avail of it.

Cathal O

MissMoppet wrote: »

The Chaplaincy already does this after 8am mass for anyone. You don't have to go to mass to have it. Around 30 people a day roughly avail of it.

This isnt a thread on the NUIG chaplaincy. Fact is, in order to cater for that many students, a lot of money will be needed, wasted money imo. Thats not even considering disposal wastes and costs of transporting all this around