PSU EGM - 4th July

reunion

Seamus.Noonan <Seamus.Noonan@ul.ie>
Jul 1 (2 days ago)

to Research, Taught
Hi All,

An EGM is scheduled to take place on Friday 4th July at 4pm in the PSU Common Room.
Light refreshments will be provided and we be would very much grateful if you could attend.

I will work relentlessly over the year to strengthen our union and need your support on Friday to do this.
Please find attached a draft of our new proposed constitution.

We are also working on a new website which is available to view at www.ulpsu.wordpress.com




Best regards,

S e a m u s N o o n a n.



Attached PSU constitution change

ULPSU

Hi reunion,

Thanks for posting information regarding our EGM scheduled to take place tomorrow at 4pm. I hope the meeting will provide clarity on any questions students may have, and hope that students can please support us tomorrow to have our new constitution ratified.

I will endeavor to monitor and update this thread as much as possible, but ask for your understanding as it may take some time to get back to all comments/posts.



Hope to see ye tomorrow.

Best regards,
Seamus Noonan.

ninty9er

3 day's notice of an EGM? What group of amateurs authorised this notice? Jaysus if I'd sent a notice like that I've have left my next council meeting more exasperated than usual.

Chimaera

What was wrong with the constitution that the union adopted earlier this year?

Ditto the website?

Chimaera

For reference this is the current PSU Constitution as adopted in April this year: http://www.ulpsu.ie/assets/files/PSU%20Constitution%202014.pdf

ULPSU

Hi All,

Firstly, thanks for your posts.
I'll respond to all comments in one message, and hope that will be ok with everybody.

ninty9er - other means of notice were used to inform members of the EGM as early as the 20th June 2014. The all student email was send this week. I'll have the full detail of all notices ready for the meeting tomorrow and hope that this may help answer your question.

chimaera - my predecessor sought to ratify a new constitution. However there has been questions regarding the validity of the same and legal counsel have advised us to host an EGM to ratify the proposed draft constitution. Since the constitution with 2nd amendment in 2011 is still viewed as perfectly sound we have take the measure to operated from that in the interim. However it was upon seeking legal advice that we were advised to ratify this proposed constitution. Something which is important to note, is that we will continue to review our constitution as a matter of routine to ensure its represents what our members feel it should, and if the constitution is ratified tomorrow we will continue to review it into the future. It is by no means a static document. From the position of the PSU office, we would envisage that amendments are proposed each year moving into the future. Our constitution is of significant importance to us, and we need to ensure it is safeguarded.

freyners - I apologise sincerely for the number of emails you received. The last thing I wanted to happen is to pester students with repeated emails. I have requested that students please refrain for using the reply all function.


If anybody has any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I will do my utmost to reply as quick as possible.

Chimaera

ULPSU wrote: »

ninty9er - other means of notice were used to inform members of the EGM as early as the 20th June 2014. The all student email was send this week. I'll have the full detail of all notices ready for the meeting tomorrow and hope that this may help answer your question.

Can you also supply the minutes of the executive meeting that sanctioned this EGM tomorrow?

ULPSU wrote: »

chimaera - my predecessor sought to ratify a new constitution. However there has been questions regarding the validity of the same and legal counsel have advised us to host an EGM to ratify the proposed draft constitution. Since the constitution with 2nd amendment in 2011 is still viewed as perfectly sound we have take the measure to operated from that in the interim. However it was upon seeking legal advice that we were advised to ratify this proposed constitution. Something which is important to note, is that we will continue to review our constitution as a matter of routine to ensure its represents what our members feel it should, and if the constitution is ratified tomorrow we will continue to review it into the future. It is by no means a static document. From the position of the PSU office, we would envisage that amendments are proposed each year moving into the future. Our constitution is of significant importance to us, and we need to ensure it is safeguarded.

This is the first I've heard of any issue with that constitution. Yes it took 2 meetings to achieve quorum, but the meeting that ratified this constitution was in fact quorate and that constitution stands until amended or replaced. You are required to operate within its bounds until it is amended or replaced.

For the sake of transparency and completeness, can you supply minutes of the executive meetings that discussed this legal difficulty and any correspondence with legal counsel that has transpired for tomorrow's meeting?

reunion

ULPSU wrote: »

If anybody has any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I will do my utmost to reply as quick as possible.

So after the EGM?


The first alarm bell for me, is the ridiculously short notice and lack of information. If this constitution was for the benefit of members, we would have been asked for input weeks in advance and information would be available everywhere about this event. You say "other means of notice" but what was that? Because if I hear you put up 1 crappy poster (that is taken down every friday); you shouldn't be in office.

If you read the constitution (in particular article 12 Section B and C), I note you are proposing to pay yourself more money and cover your daily commute to work ("Expenses for transport for officers to or from a meeting shall be paid."). While this is probably not the intent, that is certainly the reading of it (note: also covers other officers travel expenses into and out of college).

A limit needs to be put on these claims! If I go abroad on a Saturday and charge my return flight to the PSU as there is a meeting on monday morning!

ULPSU

Hi All,

The proposed EGM did not go ahead, this is because of number of members contacted us to outline their desire to attend but were unable to do so today. In response to this, we felt it only appropriate for the meeting not to be held today. We continue to operate from the constitution posted on our website.

I have received quite a few emails which I will endeavor to respond to as soon as possible. Please bear with me while I work through this backlog.

If you've any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me by email, or alternatively you can drop by my office at any time.

Kelefants

ULPSU wrote: »

Hi All,

The proposed EGM did not go ahead, this is because of number of members contacted us to outline their desire to attend but were unable to do so today. In response to this, we felt it only appropriate for the meeting not to be held today. We continue to operate from the constitution posted on our website.

I have received quite a few emails which I will endeavor to respond to as soon as possible. Please bear with me while I work through this backlog.

If you've any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me by email, or alternatively you can drop by my office at any time.

Did any meeting take place?

When was the EGM cancelled?

When were people notified of this cancellation?

Would the meeting have been quorate without those members who said they couldn't attend? If so then why was it cancelled?

If not do you blame the lack of advertising on this?

ULPSU

Hi Kelefants, in response to your post. Please see each question response detailed below.

Did any meeting take place?
Since the decision to cancel the meeting was made within 1 hour of the proposed meeting time quite a few people still showed up. I conveyed my apology for then making the effort to show up although the meeting could not go ahead.
Some of those in attendance were members of our union, but we also operated an open entry policy since the EGM was not take place, meaning this information session was open to the public.
The meeting was used as a forum for students to ask questions of the President and I hope it helped to answer these queries that students had.


When was the EGM cancelled?
The decision to cancel the EGM was made on Friday 4th July.
It was prompted by the numbers of emails received from students who stated they wished to attend but were unable to do so on this particular date.


When were people notified of this cancellation?
The decision to cancel the meeting was made at approximately 3pm. The PSU felt that they would be unable to communicate this notice in a timely fashion to members so notice given to students at 4pm.


Would the meeting have been quorate without those members who said they couldn't attend? If so then why was it cancelled?
It was incredibly unlikely that the meeting would have been quorate. Judging from the numbers in attendance quorum would not have been reached as some of those attending were not members of the PSU, and for that reason could not be recorded as an attendee to achieve quorum.
More importantly since a number of students were unable to attend on the proposed date and had notified us of this, we had concerns that their views may go unrecorded if the EGM was to go ahead.
Moving into the future we want to promote and encourage engagement with the PSU and must make it clear that every member's view is of significant importance to us.


If not do you blame the lack of advertising on this?
We will work to improve our advertising and methods of communication for events into the future.
The mailing distribution list used to communicate emails to students contains some contacts who are no longer members of the PSU and wish to be removed from this list. We will work with ITD in the coming week to incorporate an unsubscribe mechanism should any person on our distribution list wish to opt out from further communications.


Thank you for ask the above questions. I hope that if other students may have similar queries that the above response may be of some use to them. Any further questions then please just let me know.

Chimaera

Kelefants wrote: »

Did any meeting take place?

When was the EGM cancelled?

When were people notified of this cancellation?

Would the meeting have been quorate without those members who said they couldn't attend? If so then why was it cancelled?

If not do you blame the lack of advertising on this?

We were informed of the cancellation at the designated start time for the meeting. The amusing part was that the president went into the courtyard to round up more people for the meeting before telling us it was cancelled.

Had the meeting been called in accordance with the requirements of the constitution and gone ahead, it would have been quorate: there were about 50 people there, most of whom were postgrads. I know 5 of the attendees were not postgrads, but I'd be pretty certain the majority of the others were.

The advertising was quite frankly terrible. I only found out about it when I bumped into Keith Young and Liz Gabbett in the courtyard one evening earlier in the week.

nutsnboltz1

I was there and I thought it was an absolute shambles. When I arrived I found out that the meeting was cancelled without any notice being given, some people had travelled for hours to get there, one women had even hired baby sitters for the day - needless to say people were far from happy.

Despite the complete lack of notice and the timing of the meeting, I mean who decides to hold a meeting to amend the most important document of a Students Union on a Friday evening in July !!! I thought the meeting was very well attended I'd say there was at least 40-50 people present with the majority of them being postgraduate students.

reunion

ULPSU wrote: »

Thank you for ask the above questions. I hope that if other students may have similar queries that the above response may be of some use to them. Any further questions then please just let me know.

I'm guessing you are choosing the posts to reply to and the ones to ignore... Can we please get the legal recommendation that this draft constitution should be put to the members?

Can we please get a democratic opinion about a revised constitution? Maybe even hearing some suggestions from people?

nutsnboltz1

From reading the draft constitution there seems to have been a deliberate attempt to remove the accountability and oversight of the office of President. For example the constitution passed on the 22nd of April 2014 states that the executive's role is as follows:

" 2° Holding the PSU President to account ° Ensuring accountability and transparency through debate on policy and actions ° Ensuring correct responses to issues arising for the PSU"

This has been removed from the draft constitution, another section which is notably absent is "Article 16. Removal of an Officer", which states

"16.1 Every directly elected Executive Officer or Council members shall be liable to be removed from office on a proposal to that effect approved by a Referendum held in accordance with Schedule I (Election Regulations) of this Constitution. Where such a proposal is approved it shall take effect upon the declaration of the Returning Officer. A quorum for the removal of an officer shall be 50% of the total valid poll in the previous election of the position. Where such a proposal is approved, s/he will be deemed to have resigned and may not stand for re-election in any subsequent election."

Furthermore the referenda have been removed from structure of the Union, and it was also proposed to remove the referendum as the supreme decision making mechanism of the union, with this being changed to the AGM (note that the quorum of general meetings in the proposed constitution has been lowered to 15, thus 15 people would have had the power to amend the constitution!!)

Other troubling points include the removal the Mary I and Clubs & Societies Representative from the PSU executive, another point is that under the proposed constitution there is nothing to stop the PSU from becoming affiliated with religious institutions or political parties, as this safeguard has been removed!

Finally all mention of the capitation fee paid on behalf of the PSU to C&S has been removed. Therefore there would no constitutional requirement for the PSU to contribute to C&S.

I'd like to point out that this is not an exhaustive list I'm just sick of typing.

Kelefants

nutsnboltz1 wrote: »

From reading the draft constitution there seems to have been a deliberate attempt to remove the accountability and oversight of the office of President. For example the constitution passed on the 22nd of April 2014 states that the executive's role is as follows:

" 2° Holding the PSU President to account ° Ensuring accountability and transparency through debate on policy and actions ° Ensuring correct responses to issues arising for the PSU"

This has been removed from the draft constitution, another section which is notably absent is "Article 16. Removal of an Officer", which states

"16.1 Every directly elected Executive Officer or Council members shall be liable to be removed from office on a proposal to that effect approved by a Referendum held in accordance with Schedule I (Election Regulations) of this Constitution. Where such a proposal is approved it shall take effect upon the declaration of the Returning Officer. A quorum for the removal of an officer shall be 50% of the total valid poll in the previous election of the position. Where such a proposal is approved, s/he will be deemed to have resigned and may not stand for re-election in any subsequent election."

Furthermore the referenda have been removed from structure of the Union, and it was also proposed to remove the referendum as the supreme decision making mechanism of the union, with this being changed to the AGM (note that the quorum of general meetings in the proposed constitution has been lowered to 15, thus 15 people would have had the power to amend the constitution!!)

Other troubling points include the removal the Mary I and Clubs & Societies Representative from the PSU executive, another point is that under the proposed constitution there is nothing to stop the PSU from becoming affiliated with religious institutions or political parties, as this safeguard has been removed!

Finally all mention of the capitation fee paid on behalf of the PSU to C&S has been removed. Therefore there would no constitutional requirement for the PSU to contribute to C&S.

I'd like to point out that this is not an exhaustive list I'm just sick of typing.

It seems like there is conflicting information based on the numbers of attendees, however the majority in attendance say quorum would have been reached. The issue of the procedure in calling the referendum not being followed hasnt been confirmed yet though.

I find it ridiculous that the president, who claims correct procedure was followed called off an egm based on a few people being unable to attend. In my opinion this is an abuse of power as he could have called it off to suit his own agenda. The quoted text is also fairly damaging as it shows the president may be trying to accrue more power. I would imagine the attempt to remove the capitation from C&S would cause a rift between the unions.

reunion

Kelefants wrote: »

The quoted text is also fairly damaging as it shows the president may be trying to accrue more power. I would imagine the attempt to remove the capitation from C&S would cause a rift between the unions.

Honestly, when an EGM is called with 3 days notice to change the constitution without proper consultation with the members, it's always dodgey.

If this was such a minor change or legal requirement, then all the information would be provided, an open Q&A would have happened (changes taken on board or recommended) and then an AGM would have been called.

Plenty of questions remain about this draft constitution (some include):

1. Why remove C&S capitation? There might be a good reason to do so, but I'd need to know the reason before I could even begin to support such a motion.

2. Why is it legally required to pass this exact constitution with no changes or suggestions from members? Who is the lawyer that gave you this advice? I will note never to hire them.

3. Why are we suddenly paying for people's travel to meetings? I don't get paid travel to go to UL or to my job. Why are you different? Would this be immediate?

4. Why is there an increase in salary? It's more than a post-grad salary stipend (the people you represent!). Do you think you are better than them? Because IF there is to be a pay rise, it should apply for the next candidate.

5. Why 29 holiday days? Why 10 weeks pay before you take office? What is training service? That is so vague...

6. Can you provide a break down of the reason why each change is happening? Maybe also a comparison to the current constitution?

7. Why are you getting rid of the current website for a wordpress installation? Why not use ulpsu.ie, use wordpress and host it on the computer society servers? DON'T use ulpsu.wordpress.com; use test.ulpsu.ie if you want to try out a new website. Additionally, considering the PSU twitter and facebook pages haven't been updated since the 27th of June (notice of that EGM would have been nice), it would be appropriate to actually use the current infrastructure available to you before you change things for the sake of keeping us un-informed.

ULPSU

Hi guys,

I’ve been quite busy in the office over the past few days and as a result I’ve devoted quite a lot of my personal time to updating this tread through boards. What I’m conscious of is that only a certain portion of our PSU members are users of boards, and it’s quite possibly that they may not ever see the above information. For that reason I have incorporated a “feedback” section on our WordPress website where any member can post a question (that will be publically viewable) and I will aim to respond as quickly as possible. For the aforementioned reasons we will no longer be able to use boards as a means of communication.

nutsnboltz1

Yes of course a half finished website where one of the only updated sections is the President's Bio is of course a better means of communication than a well established chat forum.

I have three questions

1. The PSU has paid for a new website why are you not using it ?

2. How much did the PSU website cost to create, how long has the domain name been rented for ?

3. Would you agree that the refusal to use the already finished website amounts to a massive waste of PSU funds ?

reunion

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Ah, the comments are public but if I say so rule.


Only a certain portion of our PSU members will see comments (after moderation) on a test site.

Maybe an email to all students saying that the feedback page on the test site is open for comments? Or are you keeping it a secret?

Or do you believe that the certain portion of PSU members on here will see the comment about the feedback section and that the feedback section will suddenly reach more PSU members?

Polar Ice

ULPSU wrote: »

What I’m conscious of is that only a certain portion of our PSU members are users of boards, and it’s quite possibly that they may not ever see the above information.

That applies anywhere. You're supposed to used a wide enough range of medium for comms to communicate the message. It's not even the start of the semester and you're already withdrawing?
It's not like you put any notices on the the fb or twitter page. This seems like the only site with anything so far and you're giving up?

ULPSU wrote: »

I’ve devoted quite a lot of my personal time to updating this tread through boards.

Are you being precious with your time? You announced an EGM and people have questions as a result of your actions.
You've only made 5 posts over 5 days. Its not like it's consuming a lot of your time to make one post a day.

Kelefants

I submitted each question and statement that wasn't responded to here onto the page just now in seperate comments. I prefaced the first question with the following:

Hi Séamus,

Below I have compiled a list of questions from the boards thread which you appear to have not answered. I feel since these students have invested a considerable amount of their own personal time in asking these questions, that they should be answered. I will submit each individually as I feel each question warrants its own direct response, so I shall apologise in advance for the number of seperate posts.




I expect to see each question on the page shortly and I have a copy of exactly what I submitted should there be any issues.

reunion

The PSU president replied:

PSU President wrote:

1. C&S Funding:
I don’t believe that that our constitution should prescribe how much should be paid to the C&S each year. I think that it should be reviewed year on year to ensure the students who are members of our union at that point in time decide what level of funding should be transferred to the C&S. I don’t believe it is fair for this year’s members to set a precedent by defining the amount of funding C&S should receive year on year. Essentially it commits the budget of future students before they’ve even arrived at the University.

In the past two academic years the C&S were allocated in excess of €100,000 each year. Our budget fluctuates year on year but is generally in the region of €150,000, and our financial aid budget (fund used to distribute loans to students experiencing financial hardship) is usually about €20,000. Based on evidence, our financial aid is incapable of helping out all the students who experience serious financial problems and are otherwise at risk of having to remove themselves from their studies. Because my position involves having to meet directly with students who are experiencing financial difficulty, I have, and will, continue to encounter students over the course of my term and will find it difficult to convey to them that we cannot offer them any support as we have overcommitted our funding to C&S. Just imagine the difficulty trying to tell a student we can’t help them as we’ve sent an inordinate amount of our budget for use in extracurricular activities. Also, I have requested a report into the number of PSU members who were also a member of at least 1 C&S for the 2013/14 academic year. I expect that the uptake rate will be quite low and will reflect that it is unwarranted to provide €100,000 of support each year to the C&S.

What is important to note, and I remind myself of this frequently, I act as the representative for the members of our union, and abstain from my own judgement. I am an advocate for the C&S, recognising the important role they played for me during my time at UL, but cannot allow this to cloud my professional judgement. I will, in the coming academic year seek the opinion of students to determine what they feel is an appropriate level of funding that we can afford to budget for the C&S. I don’t propose that we cut all C&S funding, all I propose is that we undertake a review of the payment made to C&S.

Undoubtedly, this is proving to be quite a controversial topic, and I have met with people who feel very strongly regarding both sides of this C&S budget allocation. What I wish that you can understand is that if I left this unchanged (>€100,000 to C&S) I would likely be the subject of little or no criticism. However, I sought election, and was elected on the promise I made to improve the PSU during my tenure. It is incumbent on me to look at this issue which represents significant importance to our members.

2. Our office has been advised that our constitution may be untenable should a legal challenge be taken against it. This is as result of the procedure to ratify a new constitution being deviated from. We hope to correct this in the coming weeks and months and welcome any suggestions from our members.

3. Travel Expenses:
Members of our executive are generally expected to meet every 2 weeks, and in the past have been incredible selfless to donate their time and incur personal expenses. If expenses will be incurred as a result of fulfilling ones duties as part of our union, then this will affect how inclusive we can actually be. For instance if a student is interested in becoming a member of the executive they will, with the existing constitution, have to fund any expenses incurred themselves. Unfortunately, a genuine concern exists where certain students may be unable to fund expenses incurred as a direct result of their duties, and this would automatically dissuade them from working for our union. What I simply propose is that we meet the travel expenses of members of the executive for these meetings that happen approximately every two weeks. The proposal is only to reimburse members for reasonable travel expenses that were only incurred as a direct result of their duties.

4. PSU Salary:
Just an incidental point, but nonetheless quite important, I opted to take a salary cut in the proposed draft constitution, but more importantly I wanted to seek that the salary was explicitly defined in a monetary amount in the constitution so that they was no it would be perfectly clear how much this expense is. The existing constitution allows for the salary to be changed at the AGM, and traditionally in the past, attendance at the AGM has been quite low, my concern with this is that the salary of the President could be changed at an AGM and this amendment could go unnoticed to the vast majority of students.

5. There is a 2-3 week handover between the existing President and the President Elect. However, some committees only meet once a month, meaning the President Elect will not have a handover regarding this aspect of the post, that is the reason for using a training service in advance of the President Elect taking up the post. The annual leave is in keeping with conditions specified in the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

6. There are a few changes in the proposed constitution, it’s difficult to summarise all of these, as some may be of importance to some and not to others. I would like the constitution to be considered in its entirety, but for convenience I will have the main points of change listed within the coming days.

7. The reason for using WordPress is because it will allow for any authorised member of the union to easily update the information contained on the website. Unfortunately one would have to be very computer savvy to update the existing website that was built with the assistance of a web designer, and for that reason proves very difficult to edit/update. We will be migrating the WordPress site to the ulpsu.ie domain in the very near future, and will retain the existing website on ulpsu.ie under a subdomain.

Kelefants

I questioned the response to point number two. His response to that was.

Excerpt from letter received from Dundon Callanan solicitors:
“The current position is that there has been an allegation that the new Constitution was not adopted in accordance with correct procedure under the terms of the old Constitution. But the new Constitution stands as adopted and unless it is declared void by legal process”.

The constitution with amendments in 2011, our previous constitution prescribed what procedure must be followed to ratify a new constitution. The following points of concern were raised after the 22nd April.
- Notices not display “in conspicuous locations throughout the University”.
- 12.2 that there must be 10 working days prior notice given to all members by means of notice in conspicuous locations throughout the university. In this regard, the Easter holidays for the University of Limerick took place from the 14th of April to the 21st of April. The meeting took place on the 22nd of April which was one day after those holidays. Therefore, the 10 working days prior notice could, be questioned. It could be argued that the holiday period would not constitute working days and therefore the 10 working days’ notice would have to be given for the requisite number of working days prior to the commencement of the Easter break.

So basically, as with any piece of legislation, including our country's constitution, the constitution will stand unless legal action is successful.

The issues which Séamus has raised, and make no doubt that these are Séamus' concerns are: 'Notices not displayed conspicuously in locations throughout the University.' Who defines what conspicuous and throughout the university means? It is pretty vague. So as such it is open to interpretation. As per the previous constitution, if there is an issue the President's interpretation is the one that is followed. I believe Séamus wrote it into his attempt at a 'constitution' also. I will go further to say that the information was circulated via email one would assume, and also via other means such as facebook. Therefore each computer lab within the university could potentially be seen as a providing notice in conspicuous areas throughout the university.

The second issue is one which blew me away. The article of that constitution points at 10 working days being needed. Séamus does not dispute that the 10 days were followed, just when they were but the article has no guidelines or rules to prevent this from happening. Considering he is the postgraduate president, even 'easter holidays' are working days for the majority of Postgrad students. Summer 'holidays' are also a period of work for these students.

So basically his accusations are rubbish. Now lets look at that second point again in relation to his attempted EGM? A) Notices on display in conspicuous locations. Séamus claims that there were notices on display around the college. I disagree that black print on white paper constitutes a proper notice. I also wonder where these notices were.

B)10 working days - Séamus provided three.

C)Easter Holidays does not constitute working days in his eyes. Summer holidays do? However as I already stated I do not see the Summer months, nor the Easter Break as holidays, but as days to get your work done. Saying they are not working days would not stand up if a legal challenge were to come. You could also say that the former president was working those days also.

Since I put up my questions Séamus has changed the process of which to ask them. It is no longer anonymous. This is ridiculous as perhaps some students do not wish repercussions from the PSU should a need arise that they need to use them. Séamus also has yet to answer the remaining questions.

I am going to speak bluntly now. Séamus has attacked the constitution and tried to implement a version where he is in supreme control and has removed all oversite. If this happened in a real government he would not still be there after his failed attempt. His attempt at an EGM was farcical, and he called it off when he realised his support was non existent. He is attempting to put a split between the PSU and the C&S which in turn could mean the entire SU. These are just some of his actions thus far (in my opinion)

Enough is enough. He must be held to account.

Polar Ice

Kelefants: Thanks for passing on my message to the wordpress site.

Polar Ice wrote: »

ULPSU wrote: »

What I’m conscious of is that only a certain portion of our PSU members are users of boards, and it’s quite possibly that they may not ever see the above information.

That applies anywhere. You're supposed to used a wide enough range of medium for comms to communicate the message. It's not even the start of the semester and you're already withdrawing?
It's not like you put any notices on the the fb or twitter page. This seems like the only site with anything so far and you're giving up?

ULPSU wrote: »

I’ve devoted quite a lot of my personal time to updating this tread through boards.

Are you being precious with your time? You announced an EGM and people have questions as a result of your actions.
You've only made 5 posts over 5 days. Its not like it's consuming a lot of your time to make one post a day.

[quote=ULPSU on http://ulpsu.wordpress.com/feedback/comment-page-1/#comment-16]
I think from my position, it is not fair to all our members to communicate messages using a 3rd party forum. I appreciate that people are asking questions and feel it’s appropriate that all our members see both the questions and responses, and for that reason this forum must be through our wordpress.

We are working to improve our facebook and twitter presence, and will hope to have these platforms used much more frequently in the coming weeks and into the future.

I still have to fulfill all the duties I have as President, and in the past few days some other serious issues have taken precedent. For that reason the majority of my time was used trying to address these issues. I felt the responses to these questions were of importance to students and devoted personal time to respond to these.[/quote]

Seamus, you don't believe that it's fair to PSU members to communicate using a 3rd party site such as boards.ie. What are your thoughts on other 3rd party sites such as facebook and twitter?
You've stated that you've had to use personal time for your previous 5 posts in this thread. Given that it's so early in the year and the semester hasn't started yet, do you think you might be in over your head already?

Regarding the proposal that you created for the cancelled EGM to remove reference to C&S funding from ULPSU monies in the constitution. You've said that you have made a request to find out how many postgrad students were C&S members last year, and that you're waiting receipt of that information. On the wordpress site you're estimated 5% of postgrad students are C&S members.
Are you preemptively acting on estimates in advance of receiving official information?
There is a HEA recommendation (that resurfaced in the past few years when the SU was in financial difficulty) regarding the two thirds allocation to C&S. What are your thoughts on potentially circumventing a HEA recommendation if a PSU body decides to reduce funding to C&S?

Would you classify yourself as someone who generally makes decisions on gut feeling, intuition, or data?

LilRedDorcha

"7. The reason for using WordPress is because it will allow for any authorised member of the union to easily update the information contained on the website. Unfortunately one would have to be very computer savvy to update the existing website that was built with the assistance of a web designer, and for that reason proves very difficult to edit/update. We will be migrating the WordPress site to the ulpsu.ie domain in the very near future, and will retain the existing website on ulpsu.ie under a subdomain."

So, it's grand to waste PSU funds when it suits? Surely it would be possible to figure out how to use the previous site since so much effort was put in to making it.

Teslacuted

Good evening everyone,

I appear to be experiencing a most unusual string of technical difficulties when attempting to discuss this EGM on the UL email lists. Twice now, after successfully sending messages which may be seen to be critical of the PSU president, firstly to the postgraduate, and now to the opinions lists, my follow up messages have been refused by the system with a 'not-authorized' error.

Most unusual.

But to ensure that no one here is missing out on all the wonderful things I have to say, permit me to copy the would-be response below:



Seamus,

I'm glad you recall the previous email conversations, allow me to remind
you of a section from one of our exchanges on the postgraduate list, prior
to your dissolution of it:

---->

Hi Seamus,

Could you please forward any documents related to the upcoming change
so we may review them ahead of the meeting tomorrow?

Specifically:

The new draft
Legal comments regarding issues with the older version
Rationale for any additional changes not specifically required by the
legal comments.

Thank you,

Hugh

<----

Your response:

---->

Hi Hugh,

As requested, please find attached documentation pertinent to the EGM
tomorrow.

Best regards,

Seamus Noonan

<----

Here are copies of the two documents you attached to your response, one is
simple agenda (which was not requested), the other is the draft of the
constitution that you wished to pass as official before the end of the
meeting.

[alas, boards is not allowing me to attach them. [skynet dot ie slash ~teslacut slash psu] has them]

As you, and the postgraduate student body whom you represent can see, you
supplied but one of the requested documents, and then shut down the
discussion system.


You have failed to produce a list of the claimed deficiencies in the
current constitution. At the meeting last Friday, you agreed, in front of a
large attendance, to produce such documentation this week. In the absence
of such documentation, despite repeated requests and ample time to produce
it, we may well deduce that it does not exist, and that your claims were
deigned to mislead the students into approving your new constitution in a
rushed manner, under false pretences.

I enjoyed your suggestion to encourage discussion 'using appropriate
channels', as to date, you have twice disrupted any conversations regarding
the issue. Firstly, by attempted to dismiss the large number of students
who arrived in person to the EGM you called last Friday, and secondly by
removing the ability of those students to openly discuss the issue on the
email lists. Pray tell, what channels do you consider appropriate, and will
not attempt to shut down?

You used the terms 'Our concern' and 'we will be', please list the names of
the people that warrant these plural pronouns.

Finally, I include a copy of my previous email to this list, to which your
reply was perhaps intended. I note that you failed to address any of the
points raised within it, so I invite you to try again.

---

>

Seamus,

You claim to have received legal counsel claiming deficiencies in the
manner by which the previous constitution was ratified.

Alternative legal counsel has said no such deficiencies exist.

The specific deficiencies, which may, or may not exist, have not been
disclosed, and therefore cannot be publicly scrutinised.

If you are unwilling, or unable to disclose these claimed deficiencies
to the student body, then I propose you direct your counsel to correspond
with the alternative counsel until such time they either come to the same
conclusion, or determine that their opinions are irreconcilable.

Should they conclude that there are no significant deficiencies, this
matter will be concluded.

Otherwise, the correct course of action is to re-ratify the
constitution, following all required procedure, without changing the
content of the constitution itself.

Once either of the above is done, the provenance of the PSU's
constitution will be assured, and any suggested changes to it may be
discussed and put to vote as required. The issues you brought up are
significant in and of themselves, and cannot be conflated with the issues
of the constitution's validity, if such issues are determined by counsel to
exist.


Hugh

<----


Hugh


On 11 July 2014 17:37, Seamus.Noonan wrote:

> ** Please accept our apology from the PSU if this email is not of
> concern to you **
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
>
>
> If you recall from the previous email from this office, we are keen for
> all of our members to highlight any issues they may have with our
> constitution and any such responses will be noted and considered using the
> appropriate channels. Regarding 'alternative legal counsel', when our
> office sought advice from Dundon Callanan Solicitors the following is an
> excerpt from their response "I would feel I had a conflict of interest if I
> were to provide advice to you now on the issue of the adoption of the new
> constitution and I can confirm that I decline to offer any such advise"
> although an earlier letter from Dundon Callanan Solicitors does preliminary
> suggest that our constitution does not have any deficiencies. Our concern
> is that the prescribed procedure for ratifying a new constitution was not
> adhered to and for that reason may leave us vulnerable to a legal
> challenge. We will be working closely with the Executive, Council, and all
> of our members in the coming weeks and months to ensure that our
> constitution is perfectly sound, and look forward to working with you in
> this respect.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Seamus Noonan
>
>
>
> *From:* Hugh.O'Brien
> *Sent:* 11 July 2014 16:42
> *To:* Opinions; Seamus.Noonan;
> *Subject:* PSU: New Constitution
>
>
>
> Seamus,
>
> You claim to have received legal counsel claiming deficiencies in the
> manner by which the previous constitution was ratified.
>
> Alternative legal counsel has said no such deficiencies exist.
>
> The specific deficiencies, which may, or may not exist, have not been
> disclosed, and therefore cannot be publicly scrutinised.
>
> If you are unwilling, or unable to disclose these claimed deficiencies to
> the student body, then I propose you direct your counsel to correspond with
> the alternative counsel until such time they either come to the same
> conclusion, or determine that their opinions are irreconcilable.
>
> Should they conclude that there are no significant deficiencies, this
> matter will be concluded.
>
> Otherwise, the correct course of action is to re-ratify the constitution,
> following all required procedure, without changing the content of the
> constitution itself.
>
> Once either of the above is done, the provenance of the PSU's constitution
> will be assured, and any suggested changes to it may be discussed and put
> to vote as required. The issues you brought up are significant in and of
> themselves, and cannot be conflated with the issues of the constitution's
> validity, if such issues are determined by counsel to exist.
>
>
>
> Hugh
>

Popoutman

Hmm, looks like a grab for power and money that has failed..

To the current PSU president - I think you are going to have a really hard time of it when you've started this way, by trying to ramrod unneeded and dangerous changes through, in such a sly and underhanded manner.

I can understand wanting to move to wordpress, but before you change the site to somewhere else, please have a chat with the in-house experts on hosting and websites (namely the Skynet crew). You may learn one or two things, and you may be able to rescue the currently piss-poor impression that you've given the postgrads.

I think I'll be paying close attention to this set of topics - and I'll be personally calling in to have a chat with you, in the hope of seeing what your plan is.

xmcam

Two years ago, the PSU paid someone for creating the WordPress website, one year ago the website along with the new domain went live, then last November heard they decided to abandon the WordPress website and paid a UL start-up company for the current website (apparently they think the old site has too much text, and they believe postgraduates won't prefer texts,), and now, they are switching back to WordPress again, interesting!

Teslacuted

As interesting as the website decisions are, I'd ask you to pay more attention to the attempts to:

(a) Reallocate circa 120,000 euro, without significant discussion
(b) Reduce accountability of the presidents role
(c) Fast-track a half-baked constitution based on scare tactics and undisclosed (non-existent?) legal opinions
(d) Censor three distinct discussion avenues, (abuse of power?)
(e) Adjust the pay arrangements for the presidential role
(f) Hire a personal friend without advertising the role or seeking approval from exec

All within weeks of taking the position, all within the time frame where many of the students are not on campus to witness or limit these actions.

Websites, and disposable cups are relatively minor concerns in the scope of the above, don't you think?

reunion

Teslacuted wrote: »

As interesting as the website decisions are, I'd ask you to pay more attention to the attempts to:

(a) Reallocate circa 120,000 euro, without significant discussion
(b) Reduce accountability of the presidents role
(c) Fast-track a half-baked constitution based on scare tactics and undisclosed (non-existent?) legal opinions
(d) Censor three distinct discussion avenues, (abuse of power?)
(e) Adjust the pay arrangements for the presidential role
(f) Hire a personal friend without advertising the role or seeking approval from exec

All within weeks of taking the position, all within the time frame where many of the students are not on campus to witness or limit these actions.

Websites, and disposable cups are relatively minor concerns in the scope of the above, don't you think?

I'd have to read the constitution more before I even know what other changes are being made (4 days isn't sufficient). It's been 1 month since he took office and since the website at ulpsu.ie was launched...

I would also add

(g) Expenses for transport for officers to or from a meeting shall be paid.

That is open to abuse as doing the NCT, buying a car, Tax and insurance can be expenses for transport. Or even a taxi from the arena to the PSU because, why not.

Seamus probably has good intentions, but seriously, he has to have some incorrect assumptions if he can think that he can introduce such large changes without any discussion or notification.

Here is his email to post-grads on the 9th of July

PSU president wrote:

Hi All, I hope you are all doing well.

Here’s an update from our office.

1. EGM

An EGM was scheduled to take place on the 4/July/2014 but due to a significant number of requests from members to postpone this meeting we felt it appropriate to do so.


2. Constitution

We feel our constitution may need some amendments. We will leave it open to our members to decide if amendments are necessary, or if they feel we should introduce a new constitution.

We may use our AGM which is scheduled to take place in Sept/Oct as the opportunity to makes changes if requested to do so by members.

In the meantime we have incorporated a feedback function in our website (www.ulpsu.wordpress.com) where we welcome any ideas or suggested changes. Also if members wish to email their suggestions they can do so by using the address Psupresident@ul.ie We will have several meetings with our members, Executive, and Council before the proposed amendments or constitution are put forward for consideration.


3. C&S Funding

Our constitution currently prescribes how much should be paid to the C&S each year. I think that it should be reviewed year on year to ensure the students who are members of our union at that point in time decide what level of funding should be transferred to the C&S. I don’t believe it is fair for this year’s members to set a precedent by defining the amount of funding C&S should receive year on year. Essentially it commits the budget of future students before they’ve even arrived at the University.

In the past two academic years the C&S were allocated in excess of €100,000 each year. Our budget fluctuates year on year but is generally in the region of €150,000, and our financial aid budget (fund used to distribute loans to students experiencing financial hardship) is usually about €20,000. Based on evidence, our financial aid is incapable of helping out all the students who experience serious financial problems and are otherwise at risk of having to remove themselves from their studies. Because my position involves having to meet directly with students who are experiencing financial difficulty, I have, and will, continue to encounter students over the course of my term and will find it difficult to convey to them that we cannot offer them any support as we have overcommitted our funding to C&S. Just imagine the difficulty trying to tell a student we can’t help them as we’ve sent an inordinate amount of our budget for use in extracurricular activities. Also, I have requested a report into the number of PSU members who were also a member of at least 1 C&S for the 2013/14 academic year. I expect that the uptake rate will be quite low and will reflect that it is unwarranted to provide €100,000 of support each year to the C&S.

What is important to note, and I remind myself of this frequently, I act as the representative for the members of our union, and abstain from my own judgement. I am an advocate for the C&S, recognising the important role they played for me during my time at UL, but cannot allow this to cloud my professional judgement. I will, in the coming academic year seek the opinion of students to determine what they feel is an appropriate level of funding that we can afford to budget for the C&S. I don’t propose that we cut all C&S funding, all I propose is that we undertake a review of the payment made to C&S.

Undoubtedly, this is proving to be quite a controversial topic, and I have met with people who feel very strongly regarding both sides of this C&S budget allocation. What I wish that you can understand is that if I left this unchanged (>€100,000 to C&S) I would likely be the subject of little or no criticism. However, I sought election, and was elected on the promise I made to improve the PSU during my tenure. It is incumbent on me to look at this issue which represents significant importance to our members.


4. Common Room

We have initiated the process of having an ID card system installed for access to the PSU common room. The reason for doing so is because it will allow all members to have 24hr access to their common room without the need to have to pay a key deposit. We have also began using disposable cups and hope to continue with this into the future. A new microwave is most definitely needed and we are open to suggestion as to what other appliances should be purchased.


5. Events

We will aim to have a range of social events organised over the coming weeks. If you’ve any suggestions please let us know via email Psupresident@ul.ie

Teslacuted

Subject: Access to email lists
From: "Hugh O'Brien" <hugh.obrien<>ul.ie>
To: itss<>ul.ie

Good afternoon,

Last week I made use of the Taught Postgraduates and Research Postgraduates
list to discuss an ongoing political issue within the postgraduates student
union.

Today I attempted to make use of this list again and received an automated
reply stating that I was not authorised.

As mentioned, these lists were being used for an urgent political issue and
the sudden, unannounced changes to their access policy are quite unwelcome.

Could you please, at least for the coming weeks, restore the ability for
postgraduates to send to these lists? Was there a particular reason for the
change?

Thank you,

Hugh O'Brien

This part partly redacted, as I imagine the ITD person wants nothing to do with this. I'm presuming their permission to post it.

From: XXXXX <XXXXX<>ul.ie>
To: Information Technology Student Support
<Information.Technology.Student.Support<>ul.ie>, Hugh.O'Brien
<Hugh.OBrien<>ul.ie>
Subject: RE: Access to email lists

Hi Hugh,


This change was requested by Seamus Noonan, the Students Union President.
He was getting complaints from members of those lists about inappropriate use of those lists and they were asking to be removed from said lists

Regards

XXXX

As mentioned, the opinions list (an additional list, unrelated to the PSU in any way) has now been closed off to me. It could only be his work as I've caused much bigger controversies there in the past without issue.

Also note that the ITD person misunderstood Seamus' position, and likely his authority. Seamus Noonan may be suffering from megalomania. I suggest we help him through this troubling time.

freyners

To be quite honest, Im glad thats been done. We get enough needless crap in our emails without getting more of it.

Teslacuted

freyners wrote: »

To be quite honest, Im glad thats been done. We get enough needless crap in our emails without getting more of it.

Fair enough, but to do it secretly, and suddenly, avoiding any consultation with those his office represents, yet doing it in their name, and without providing an alternative, in the midst of a scandal that's personally damaging to him, thus effectively silencing dissent, and to go further and directly influence my personal access to a non-PSU related list for my audacious act of criticising him?

Abuse of power. And that's before we discuss matters (a) through (g).

nutsnboltz1

I just don't get what he's going to do with the 120,000 I mean thats a lot of money, he has failed to explain how his student hardship fund will be administered who will decide who qualifies for support ...... the president I mean that is clearly open for abuse, will the PSU not have to hire additional staff to administer this project, if so will there actually be interviews for these jobs or are they for the presidents mates??

(a)Are these grants that the PSU will be offering, short term loans?
(b)Can we really trust someone who does not believe in transparency and accountability with this amount of money ?
(c) Another point to note is that the external account was removed from the draft constitution (very dodgy)
(d)Under the draft constitution only the President and the VP have to sign off on expenditure so if the President is chumming it with the VP then this would be open to wide scale abuse.
(e) The PSU is not a bank a building society or part of the social welfare system. I know that many postgrads are finding it tough, I know this year was very difficult finically for me but this is not the role of the PSU it's primary role is to represent Students.

Teslacuted

I think the question of trust has been answered many times over. I'm no longer interested in debating the proposed changes. I'm interested in making a case for his removal. He's had more than enough time to act responsibly, it's now our responsibility to clean up the mess we made by electing him.

No employee in any job could mess up this badly without being shown the door.

reunion

Teslacuted wrote: »

I think the question of trust has been answered many times over. I'm no longer interested in debating the proposed changes. I'm interested in making a case for his removal. He's had more than enough time to act responsibly, it's now our responsibility to clean up the mess we made by electing him.

No employee in any job could mess up this badly without being shown the door.

I think that is a little too much too fast... I mean by the AGM if we have another constitution which is attempted to be rushed through without consultation from members and another new PSU website; he should be reconsidered immediately. My only concern would be filling the vacancy mid-term as the PSU, in general, isn't that well contested during normal election time.


I find the all students emails annoying and ITD should stop all these emails. You should have to request access not automatically be given the right to email everyone. God knows I get sooo many HOUSE TO RENT emails each year. Granted there was that one funny email chain a year or 2 ago.

Teslacuted

His intentions are clear for anyone to see, both from his own writings and from his actions on record, (and from some of his off-record, but noted, actions). I think there's more than enough to make a strong case. We shouldn't shy away from some ugliness when it's justified and the alternatives are much worse.

DaveR1

Teslacuted wrote: »

His intentions are clear for anyone to see, both from his own writings and from his actions on record, (and from some of his off-record, but noted, actions). I think there's more than enough to make a strong case. We shouldn't shy away from some ugliness when it's justified and the alternatives are much worse.

I'm afraid in this instance I agree....... Enough is enough and the situation needs to be dealt with before it gets out of control. His intentions have been made clear. To go to ITD about one in particular person and have his personal e-mail settings altered is an absolute abuse of power and can't be tolerated.

reunion

DaveR1 wrote: »

I'm afraid in this instance I agree....... Enough is enough and the situation needs to be dealt with before it gets out of control. His intentions have been made clear. To go to ITD about one in particular person and have his personal e-mail settings altered is an absolute abuse of power and can't be tolerated.

I think it should be noted here that it was ALL students not just one student (as far as I understand).

I am in favour of removing the ability of people notifying me about an empty room in college court. Hardly Seamus' fault that ITD have been allowing such stupid emails to be sent to all students. I think stopping people emailling everyone would be a plus out of Seamus' rather short time as PSU president.

I'm certain if you talked to the ULSU president (as post-grads are members of that too!), they can notify Post-grads with a single email and not spam them.

Teslacuted

As I said, in addition to him shutting down the postgrad list in the middle of a discussion regarding his actions, my personal access to the unrelated 'opinions' list was removed shortly after moving the discussion over to there.

From: Microsoft Outlook
<MicrosoftExchange329e71ec88ae4615bbc36ab6ce41109e<>staffmail.ul.ie>
To: <Hugh.OBrien<>ul.ie>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:20:05 +0100
Subject: Undeliverable: PSU: New Constitution

Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:

Opinions (Opinions2<>ul.ie)<mailto:Opinions2<>ul.ie>
Your message can't be delivered because delivery to this address is restricted.

I had successfully posted to this list on '2014-07-11 16:42', Seamus replied at 17:37, and the censorship was applied immediately after.

Let me say this again for clarity, first Seamus shut down postgraduate access to the postgraduate list, while retaining access himself. This shutdown occurred during a conversation about his actions. The list would rarely see more than one email a week.

When I found myself denied access to the postgrad list, I moved the discussion to the UL opinions list, which is an optional subscription for anyone with a staff or research email address. I posted, he replied, and then when I went to reply again, I was denied access. He is shutting down any dissenting discussion of his unjustifiable actions. Is this the man you want acting in your name?

freyners

Teslacuted wrote: »

As I said, in addition to him shutting down the postgrad list in the middle of a discussion regarding his actions, my personal access to the unrelated 'opinions' list was removed shortly after moving the discussion over to there.



I had successfully posted to this list on '2014-07-11 16:42', Seamus replied at 17:37, and the censorship was applied immediately after.

Does that list send an email to every post grad?

Teslacuted

freyners wrote: »

Does that list send an email to every post grad?

Edited my post for clarity. All staff / post-grads are subscribed to 'opinions' by default, but can easily unsubscribe. ITD documentation online discusses how.

Kelefants

I currently have 6 posts that I copied and pasted from here to the wordpress site addressing Séamus which he is yet to respond to. It has been almost a week. Now one might think he just hasn't seen it, however he has responded to one of the questions that was posed at the same time by me. Once again, further stifling of discussions regarding his actions.

I am curious as to the constant use of (the royal) we he uses. Who is he speaking for? Does his exec back him? Considering he tried to remove two members of exec (clubs and socs rep and Mary I rep) I would think he doesn't give a fiddlers.

I also must ask Reunion and I hope you don't take this the wrong way but, what will it take before you would seek his removal? Considering everything he's done, and every chance he's been given, how many more chances are you willing to give him? I'm genuinely curious as to why you still have faith that he can turn this around.

reunion

Kelefants wrote: »

I also must ask Reunion and I hope you don't take this the wrong way but, what will it take before you would seek his removal? Considering everything he's done, and every chance he's been given, how many more chances are you willing to give him? I'm genuinely curious as to why you still have faith that he can turn this around.

How long has he been in office? about a month/month and a half?

As far as I'm aware, he doesn't have experience in industry nor with the Students' Unions (PSU, ULSU or C&S) and that this is really his first experience with such a large and broad membership. There is a learning curve and I personally know, my first time on a committee, I wanted to change a lot too quickly and I can see how that might be considered a grab for power.

Also I don't believe he is intentionally malicious and I honestly don't think he'd take the job of president to change the constitution so that he can pay himself/his friends to go to meetings or hire his friends. I believe that he has just tried to do too much too fast. If he takes this as an opportunity to learn from his mistakes, not rush extreme changes, listen to every member (and other bodies UL, ULSU, C&S and former sabbats) and correctly inform members then everyone wins really.

I feel a vote to remove him is way too quick and an overreaction to a mistake and not really giving him a chance to learn.

If you are the defeated candidate I understand why you want him removed :pac:

Teslacuted

reunion wrote: »

There is a learning curve and I personally know, my first time on a committee, I wanted to change a lot too quickly and I can see how that might be considered a grab for power.

That would be a very reasonable explanation, if he was taking the time to learn the ropes, engage with his colleagues and the students he represents, hold discussions on issues he wasn't sure of yet, and promote an atmosphere of positive engagement and progress.

Sadly, he is doing the opposite of all of those things. Censorship. Misleading legal claims. Rushing votes. Nepotism. Cancelling meetings when caught out. Dismissing rooms full of students who want to know what's going on. Not replying to online questions and silencing the discussions of others.

Justification for removal has never been so definitive.

reunion

Teslacuted wrote: »

That would be a very reasonable explanation, if he was taking the time to learn the ropes, engage with his colleagues and the students he represents, hold discussions on issues he wasn't sure of yet, and promote an atmosphere of positive engagement and progress.

Sadly, he is doing the opposite of all of those things. Censorship. Misleading legal claims. Rushing votes. Nepotism. Cancelling meetings when caught out. Dismissing rooms full of students who want to know what's going on. Not replying to online questions and silencing the discussions of others.

Justification for removal has never been so definitive.

I have since been informed privately by someone else about more concerns regarding Seamus current tenure. I'm shocked that I created this thread and someone else more informed didn't. I'm off campus at the moment (but still a post-grad). All I knew (at the time) was an EGM was called quite quickly to change the constitution which didn't give me, as an off campus post-grad member, enough notice nor was I informed of these proposed changes. So I created this thread to try to advertise the EGM a little better (and hopefully get some conversation on such a massive change to the constitution).

Just to note; I was never against his removal nor was I for it. I personally feel that removing someone from office should really be a last resort after every avenue has been explored.

Keano84

Just bumped into this thread now as I was forwarded on the below email and was curious to what is going on. As an MIC Postgrad in my first year I am concerned that we are potentially loosing our connection with the UL PSU. I deleted some irrelevant material from the below email but it speaks for its self in relation to the removal of the MISU Rep. I am not the MISU Rep btw

---

Dear all,

Sincere apologies for the delayed reply I have been out of office on contract work over the last two weeks, I would like you all to take serious note of this email, perhaps grab a strong coffee before reading, instant will do. I have divided this email in three sections:

3. Constitutional Changes. If you want to get to the serious part skip to part three.

We must look at the national state of Postgraduate studies in the country, cuts of funding, manipulation of calls for research funding, a blatant lack of employee rights or training for Postgraduates that work as lecturers or those who give tutorials. The low rate of employment for PhD graduates, work schemes coercing MA and PhD graduates into lackluster positions. But hey, that is just my two cents…



3. Constitutional amendments
Now that the housekeeping is out of the way, I would like to point you all in the direction of a more important issue. I noticed on the proposed “new” agenda that the MISU Representative has been taken out of the Executive team. This is a grave concern to me personally but also to the MISU.
Unlike UL having two SU’s, Mary Immaculate College has one SU. The MISU Postgraduate Officer acts as an executive member of the MISU.
a) We have our own constitution, the Postgraduate Officers role according to the current - 2013/14 MIC Constitution is;
" (v) The Postgraduate Officer shall liaise with all postgraduate class representatives and the Postgrad Students Union in the University of Limerick, where s/he is a full member, regarding their activities and those of the Union."

b) The current UL PSU constitution lists the MISU representative as:
“Article 8. Executive: 8.1 Executive shall consist of a Mary Immaculate College Representative”
This current version that was passed through quorum in May 2014, lists this position seven times throughout the document. This is in accordance with the MISU constitution. I ensured that the wording and position remained the same as the previous constitution to avoid a referendum in MIC.

c) The draft ‘proposed’ constitution, lists this role at a lower standing of PSU council, and lists the position once in the document:
“ARTICLE VIII: PSU COUNCIL 1. e. A Mary Immaculate College Representative.”
It also fails to list the responsibilities or role of the position. I am aware that the UL PSU can change their constitution by quorum (50 persons). However your proposed draft eliminates the position of the Mary Immaculate Representative from the Executive Team, hence not complying with the MISU constitution.

It is imperative to note that the MISU constitution may only be amended by referendum. A referendum can be called by the Executive Committee (MISU), Union Council or a petition from at least 15% of the Union’s membership. For a referendum to be valid, at least 10% of Union members must vote, that is 353 students of MIC. If you can all understand this causes a multitude of problems for MIC. We would have to hold a referendum costing in excess of €2,000 for printing and staff, we would need to get 353 minimum number of students to vote and an executive committee to veto the referendum. All which is impossible as they are mostly undergrads and not on campus till September. You then need to give two weeks notice during the academic year.
I hope all members of the UL PSU Executive team realise the basic fact that the University of Limerick awards all Undergraduate and Postgraduate degrees of Mary Immaculate College. More importantly, all Postgraduate courses and running of the courses must adhere to your guidelines, in the UL Academic handbook. So if there are any major changes to this handbook, you would think that the MISU Postgrad Rep should be at Executive level to discover these changes and be given the opportunity to report to the Postgrads of MIC? Even more importantly, I am not too sure if you can comprehend that UL are the governing authority of all Level 10 degrees in MIC? In layman’s terms UL are in full control of all PhD’s in Mary I. If these are not important reasons to maintain the MISU Postgraduate Rep on the Executive team then I do not know what else is.

Besides all of these technicalities and inconvenience for the MIC student body to host a referendum in the first place, we should be strengthening the ties between MIC, UL and indeed LIT. Only on the 7th of May 2014 Mary Immaculate College (MIC), Limerick Institute of Technology (LIT) and the University of Limerick (UL) have committed to a new strategic alliance involving a detailed programme of enhanced collaboration, co-operation and development between the three higher education institutions.
Further to this, the three colleges submitted draft ‘Performance Compacts’ to the HEA in January with the expectation that the Performance Compacts of all HEIs would be formally approved by the HEA shortly. It was agreed that the members of this Regional Cluster had adopted the name ‘Shannon Consortium Strategic Alliance’ and had forwarded a MoU to the HEA. Noted also that the MoU set out how Mary Immaculate College, Limerick Institute of Technology and the University of Limerick had committed to a detailed programme of enhanced collaboration, co-operation and development in accordance with HEA recommendations for the future higher education landscape.
In summary, there will be a type of merged Graduate School between three institutions. I would envisage that now is the time to collaborate any issues or ideas from the Postgraduate students that will be affected by this merger. It is also the time not to take our eye of the ball with smaller insignificant issues and look at the bigger picture of events that concern the Postgraduate students.

I endeavor that you will not perceive my email as a rant but as a letter of grave concern over the issues I have raised. I would hope that the year is not consumed by disagreements on wording of constitutions or coffee but that the Executive team with support from the UL SU will give 110% commitment of representation of the students.

Remember in all students’ Unions, it is the students that are the supreme governing body, not the President, not the Executive Team, and not the PSU Council, you must never forget that.

Le Buíochas,

Teslacuted

I think Mary-I has been sidelined in this discussion so far, so I'm glad they have someone keeping tabs on this debacle.

Keano84 wrote: »

c) The draft ‘proposed’ constitution, lists this role at a lower standing of PSU council, and lists the position once in the document:
“ARTICLE VIII: PSU COUNCIL 1. e. A Mary Immaculate College Representative.”
It also fails to list the responsibilities or role of the position. I am aware that the UL PSU can change their constitution by quorum (50 persons). However your proposed draft eliminates the position of the Mary Immaculate Representative from the Executive Team, hence not complying with the MISU constitution.

It's a good thing that Seamus sought out the opinions of all relevant stakeholders and worded his new constitution in a clear and reasonable manner while paying heed to all those it affects. I'm particularly pleased at how he followed best practices by forming an open-invitation committee to form a draft and then circulated it for the greatest exposure. [He wrote it himself, secretly, ended up with a half-arsed draft, and then tried to pass it on the sly. He was caught.].

This is just more fuel for the fire.

Meanwhile, in the fantasy world he lives in, he's circulated a letter to all postgraduates. An ability he has, that you'll recall, was shared by all other postgraduates until such time as he disliked the discussion, wherein he revoked the access of the students he claims to represent. Now only he can contact them, lest we disagree with any of his dictums.

Here are some excerpts:

Our office has instigated a request to have members of our Executive Committee and PSU Council to become eligible for recognition through the highly prestigious President’s Volunteer Awards.

Ah, he's back to using the royal 'we', that way our minds can't single him out as a target of disdain. Note how he tells us of all the great prizes he'll be able to apply for.

We have an increasing number of means of communication with our members (email, facebook, twitter, etc.) and we will continue to work to improve these platforms into the future.

As a Union, we have to ensure that we facilitate the contribution of ideas and feedback from all our members. Our website has several mechanisms by which members can communicate with us, as well as through the use of emails. We have added an additional feature to our website which will allows us to substantiate that suggestions received are from our members, as these are the people who should be able to direct their union however they wish.

Emphasis mine, because you couldn't write bull**** like that if you tried.

Note that his 'additional feature' requires disclosing your ID before you may comment, a thoroughly considered and progressive decision that I somehow missed out on being consulted on. Note that boards is not present, despite it being the most significant venue for online discussion. It would be a shame if he were to direct people here, they might be exposed to dangerous information. Also note that all of the methods listed are under his control, and can therefore, as we have seen, be silenced, at his whims.

I intend, during the course of the year, in affording students every opportunity to voice their opinions thus ensuring that union policy will become more student driven while still performing its primary role of advising and helping students to progress with their studies as efficiently and productively as possible.

Emphasis mine. Apparently you can write bull**** like this. This man is on record for censuring and silencing any dissenting discussion. If he hadn't carefully worded this statement to be in the future, it would be an outright lie.

Now that the election is over, and we all look forward to a new academic year I understand I will not please everybody all of the time

This is a less than subtle attempt to solidify his election in our minds, such that we couldn't dream of the possibility of removing him. He wants us to consider him a fait accompli, while we ignore his misdeeds and look to a future of sunshine and flowers (and PVA awards).

Let me refer you all to article 16: 'removal of an officer', in the current, valid PSU constitution. The same constitution that Seamus told us all was legally deficient, but was careful never to say how.

Every directly elected Executive Officer or Council members shall be liable to be removed from office

. The sooner the better, I feel.

goldencrisp62

right lads, is there any means of reproach with regards getting this guy out of office?

Hopefully the lads with a stake in the SU and PSU like Ginge etc will figure out a work around to get rid of this parasite

Chimaera

At this point, it looks like the earliest opportunity that will allow for Noonan to be removed in a legally robust fashion will be September. I believe there are a number of people planning to do so when the opportunity presents itself.