SU Elections

Princess Lou

Hi, I'm just wondering does anyone else see how highly flawed the SU Elections are?

philiporeilly

Princess Lou wrote: »

Hi, I'm just wondering does anyone else see how highly flawed the SU Elections are?

????

The positions are open to any full-time registered student. How are they flawed?????

If you don't like the candidates why not run yourself?

eth0

Who ever gives out the most free sweets gets all the votes?

mrmeindl

I don't see how they're flawed, there should be a rule against more than one term as SU president, our glorious leader and the other 2 sabbaticals are taking the piss running again.

Outkast_IRE

I would agree with the comments that positions should be limited to 1 term.

Also must say i spotted banners for the existing president that was running again placed in locations they wouldnt have access to as a normal studnt running , such as up high on the front of the library building

I wonder how anyone except the current president would be treated if they either
1. broke health and safety rules to place it there or
2. Used Cit staff to place the banner there for him which no other candidate would normally be in a position to do .

philiporeilly

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I would agree with the comments that positions should be limited to 1 term.

Also must say i spotted banners for the existing president that was running again placed in locations they wouldnt have access to as a normal studnt running , such as up high on the front of the library building

I wonder how anyone except the current president would be treated if they either
1. broke health and safety rules to place it there or
2. Used Cit staff to place the banner there for him which no other candidate would normally be in a position to do .

Completely disagree on the 1yr term limit. Having seen many SU officers in action since '97 (in CIT and many other colleges around the country) it is fair to say it takes many weeks/months before the officers get to know exactly how the systems work and get a working relationship with all the necessary management. Also pushing things through committees takes months of planning and not done on last minute whims.

The current 2yr term limit per position makes sense as in a lot of cases it is better to have an experienced officer working for you if in difficulty with exams, housing, etc etc.

Students rarely get to see the very hard work behind the scenes carried out by SU officers.

Also your point re the banner - there is a door in the library leading out on to a balcony where that poster was hanging. Not exactly a safety risk and not the first time a candidate has used that location over the past few years.

mrmeindl

philiporeilly wrote: »

Completely disagree on the 1yr term limit. Having seen many SU officers in action since '97 (in CIT and many other colleges around the country) it is fair to say it takes many weeks/months before the officers get to know exactly how the systems work and get a working relationship with all the necessary management.

Having seen the current SU bods "in action" it must have taken a long time to get to know management.

philiporeilly wrote: »

Also pushing things through committees takes months of planning

Yes all their big achievements, like when the SU president claimed(the day before the election) to have restored normal library opening hours the following monday.

philiporeilly wrote: »

and not done on last minute whims.

??

philiporeilly wrote: »

The current 2yr term limit per position makes sense as in a lot of cases it is better to have an experienced officer working for you if in difficulty with exams, housing, etc etc.

Like the "experienced" SU president who having been an officer for 2 years already could not list anything he had actually done?

philiporeilly wrote: »

Students rarely get to see the very hard work behind the scenes carried out by SU officers.

This would be the vital work that the current SU president could not list. When asked to list his "achievements" he just deleted all the questions.

Attached screenshot was taken March 14th, prior to post deletion by parties working for on the behalf of the SU president.

The SU in CIT is a joke, 2 wasters who now get another paid year to do nothing. The SU money would be better diverted to buying a bar license.

Outkast_IRE

philiporeilly wrote: »

Completely disagree on the 1yr term limit. Having seen many SU officers in action since '97 (in CIT and many other colleges around the country) it is fair to say it takes many weeks/months before the officers get to know exactly how the systems work and get a working relationship with all the necessary management. Also pushing things through committees takes months of planning and not done on last minute whims.

The current 2yr term limit per position makes sense as in a lot of cases it is better to have an experienced officer working for you if in difficulty with exams, housing, etc etc.

Students rarely get to see the very hard work behind the scenes carried out by SU officers.

Also your point re the banner - there is a door in the library leading out on to a balcony where that poster was hanging. Not exactly a safety risk and not the first time a candidate has used that location over the past few years.

Am i right in thinking that its fairly common for officer to start campaigning for different positions once their 2 year term is up ? or else take a crack at the presidents position ?

philiporeilly

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Am i right in thinking that its fairly common for officer to start campaigning for different positions once their 2 year term is up ? or else take a crack at the presidents position ?

All positions are for one year but you can run again for re-election for a second term (if you get it).

It has been very rare that an officer would do more than 2yrs full-time in CIT. A lot of officers I have known would do 1yr as VP and 1yr as President, which is what I did myself in 2000-2001 / 2001-2002 academic years.

philiporeilly

mrmeindl wrote: »

Having seen the current SU bods "in action" it must have taken a long time to get to know management.



Yes all their big achievements, like when the SU president claimed(the day before the election) to have restored normal library opening hours the following monday.




??




Like the "experienced" SU president who having been an officer for 2 years already could not list anything he had actually done?



This would be the vital work that the current SU president could not list. When asked to list his "achievements" he just deleted all the questions.

Attached screenshot was taken March 14th, prior to post deletion by parties working for on the behalf of the SU president.

Haven't been a full-time student for many years so not my position to rate the abilities or achievements of current officers. As you can see from my comments above I was speaking in general terms.

One thing though, I respect all candidates for placing their name on the ballot and running. Whether they win or not at least they are putting their names forward.

The SU is not just the elected officers, in fact they are at the bottom of the ladder. It starts at the top by Student Body (Referendum/General Meeting) > Class Reps (Union Council) > Officer (Executive) and all policies and plans for the year are fed down through these channels.

Over the years I have heard students ranting about issues and blaming the SU and not just in CIT. When I asked, very few actually brought the issues to their reps/officers or engaged with the various systems in place for pushing things through.

It is easy to criticise without seeing the actual work that goes on in the background. I'm not saying that officers shouldn't be taken to task but why not attend meetings and find out what they were doing and if not happy use the various methods open to you the meetings to get the results students want.

mrmeindl wrote: »

The SU in CIT is a joke, 2 wasters who now get another paid year to do nothing. The SU money would be better diverted to buying a bar license.

Again, a very unfair and ignorant comment. Whatever your personal feelings are, at the end of the day they put their names forward and the student body elected them. I would love to see you put your name forward and do a position for a year so you know exactly what is done in those jobs.

In regards to the bar, if you had any research done you would know that the majority of campus bars lose money. Where I would have been in favour of a campus bar in the past, I have to say that I have changed my mind on this in recent years. Firstly, an bar on campus would be more strictly controlled than what other student bars could offer. Why would students use an on-campus bar when there are others closer to their accommodation? Also why should money be diverted away from other student services to pay for a bar that will make a loss?

Paulie Walnuts

Been in CIT for 4 years now. Can't think of a single thing the SU have done. The college experience has not changed one bit. Having seen the election count going on this year, it seemed to me that the current SU are a tight clique of pals most of whom ran for a second term this year. I reckon they are a bunch of self serving careerists. Oh and rag week was laaaaaaame, that "flash mob" was one of the most cringe inducing things I've ever seen.

pixie_dust

I have to agree with the above poster. The SU over the past four years has actually gotten progressively worse.

I also think that they shouldn't be left to stay on for a second term; especially when they do nothing. It is quite selfish as they are not giving others a chance - just seems to be the same clique that only do it because it looks good on the cv. None of them have intents on actually making any realistic or beneficial change to student life.

Personality wise, none of them seem to posess any inherent charm or charisma; one of the candidates appeared to recruit two young attractive girls to promote them. If you have to resort to that, then you lose all credibility.

As for their election campaigns, they were mostly hideous - one of them went along and spray painted some illegible message on a white sheets/rags which were plastered all over the place like a complete eyesore. Another group shouted at people as they passed through the corridor.

I can only describe it as an absolute shambles which is why I did not waste my time voting for any of them. :pac:

philiporeilly

pixie_dust wrote: »

I also think that they shouldn't be left to stay on for a second term; especially when they do nothing. It is quite selfish as they are not giving others a chance

They weren't left to stay as you say and it wasn't selfish. Do you understand the concept of elections?

The positions were open to all full-time registered students. The student body re-elected some of them and whether you like the result or not, you cannot say that it is not fair. It is what the majority of students who voted wanted.

Dermighty

Personally I couldn't give a ****. There's going to be someone in the position anyway, and as far as I'm concerned unless the registration/capitation fees go down (which they wont), there's not much they can do that interests me.

Paulie Walnuts

philiporeilly wrote: »

The student body re-elected some of them and whether you like the result or not, you cannot say that it is not fair. It is what the majority of students who voted wanted.

The elections are flawed in favour of the incumbent. I'm sure you've noticed the many posters of our great SU leaders plastered all over the college over the last few months (nothing to do with elections). The only point of these posters was to raise the profile of the candidates. Who pays for these glossy printed posters???

On top of this they appear with startling regularity in and on the CIT magazine. Why do the SU feel it is soooo important that students should know what they look like? Students need to know where the SU office is should they require some sort of assistance (something I don't know after spending four years in the college but hey, I know what they look like and that's all that really matters right?).

They also have access to offices and printers (which I'm sure comes in handy when printing off the plethora of election posters).

philiporeilly wrote: »

Also your point re the banner - there is a door in the library leading out on to a balcony where that poster was hanging. Not exactly a safety risk and not the first time a candidate has used that location over the past few years.

Regarding the banner that was hung, I doubt that anyone but an incumbent could get CIT staff to assist in the hanging of their posters.

philiporeilly wrote: »

The current 2yr term limit per position makes sense as in a lot of cases it is better to have an experienced officer working for you if in difficulty with exams, housing, etc etc.

So why not just let stay on indefinitely? When the current shower were elected did they have experience???

philiporeilly wrote: »

Students rarely get to see the very hard work behind the scenes carried out by SU officers.

I would like to see a list of achievements of the SU or perhaps some testimonials by students that have been helped by the SU. I fear the list would offer slim pickings. It seems to me that the main purpose of the SU is to organize piss ups and get their picture taken at said piss ups looking krazee and zany for publication in the explicit magazine. I suppose at least they can organize a piss up in a brewery club, fair play guys!

Outkast_IRE

Maybe they can be more honest about it next year somethin like

RE-ELECT XYZ the job market in the real world is looking pretty bad out there so im going to stay on here in my safe student style life for another year.

mrmeindl

Same ****, different year.

Paulie Walnuts wrote: »

Been in CIT for 4 years now. Can't think of a single thing the SU have done. The college experience has not changed one bit. Having seen the election count going on this year, it seemed to me that the current SU are a tight clique of pals most of whom ran for a second term this year. I reckon they are a bunch of self serving careerists. Oh and rag week was laaaaaaame, that "flash mob" was one of the most cringe inducing things I've ever seen.

Different year but still the same story, instead of a flash mob they did an appalling "Harlem shake", v2 of which was deleted from youtube because of the abuse it was getting.

pixie_dust wrote: »

I have to agree with the above poster. The SU over the past four years has actually gotten progressively worse.

I also think that they shouldn't be left to stay on for a second term; especially when they do nothing. It is quite selfish as they are not giving others a chance - just seems to be the same clique that only do it because it looks good on the cv. None of them have intents on actually making any realistic or beneficial change to student life.

As for their election campaigns, they were mostly hideous - one of them went along and spray painted some illegible message on a white sheets/rags which were plastered all over the place like a complete eyesore. Another group shouted at people as they passed through the corridor.

I can only describe it as an absolute shambles which is why I did not waste my time voting for any of them. :pac:

The two post's I've bold-ed are relevant because apparently one or potentially more of the non-presidential SU sabbaticals don't get on with the current president or any of the non sabbaticals and handed out these on election day; :-)




So the intraoffice politics in the SU took an insulting, degrading and anti-Semitic undertone pretty quickly you could say. The SU showed themselves as the complete waste of money, space and oxygen they are yet again.