Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

1…1516182021…38

Comments

  • #512
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    tritium wrote:
    Well you certainly seem to.....


    Not really. Has very little effect on my life what happens with this lady tbh.


  • #513
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    tritium wrote: »
    To your 57......

    Typical of you to do post counts. ;)

    Next you'll be explaining the process in painful detail over and over.


  • #514
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    I'm pro-choice so I'd like to point that out before we go on.

    Saying that, I'm not getting why all of a sudden people are focusing on one girl in UCD's SU. A few years ago when I was at UCD doing a postgrad the scandal below was in full swing. To give you the bones of it. The student union were 1.4 million Euros in debt. The student bar they managed (the busiest in Ireland) had to close and many good decent people with mortgages lost their jobs.

    Now when the auditors went through the books of the student union they found

    "There were up to 23,000 bank transactions over the four-year period and as many as 10,000 of these held no initial explanation."

    Now I knew people who worked for the union. To be brutally honest they skimmed money, the paid for taxis to and from the Radison Hotel (across the road from UCD) and put rooms on expenses. This was all student's money as part of the registration fee and money that could have been used for disadvantaged students in the university.

    These people were the most self entitled, privileged of upbringing and heartless people you could meet. One was the son of a famous Kerry politician also known for fiddling the expenses (Ceann Comhairle) and got away scot free.

    So yes, this woman handled things wrong, but to single her out of a bad bunch is ludicrous.

    Article here.
    UCD student union racks up €1.4m debt
    Mark Hilliard and Louise Hogan
    April 13 2012 5:00 AM

    THE students' union at University College Dublin has run up debts of €1.4m following years of catastrophic accountancy practices.
    The Revenue Commissioners, which is owed nearly €400,000 in unpaid tax liabilities, have been contacted.
    A meeting at the university campus last night, attended by over 100 students, was given details of the union's deficit following a thorough audit of its financial affairs from 2007 to June last year.

    It uncovered a lack of systematic book-keeping; missing bank statements, paperwork and cheque stubs; and evidence that the union had paid employees without deducting tax.
    Gerry McNally, of McNally Business Services Ltd, told the meeting he had been called in to "get a position in terms of what the financial status of the union was" and to "put systems in place to make sure that the problems do not go forward".

    With an annual turnover of around €4m, the union was a "big organisation by Irish standards" and included four retail outlets, Mr McNally said.
    "There has been no real control of day-to-day spending."

    Cheques
    He said his team had uncovered a "really poor, or lack of management" in financial activities.

    Slides shown during the half-hour presentation cited a "lack of clarity and transparency between (union) entities" and "no formal management reporting" as well as "substandard books and records".
    "We couldn't find cheques written so we couldn't find out who cheques had been written to," said Mr McNally.
    There were up to 23,000 bank transactions over the four-year period and as many as 10,000 of these held no initial explanation.
    While the trawl of the union's books has been completed, it must be signed off by an external accountant -- a process likely to take another two months.

    It was unclear last night what action, if any, the Revenue is likely to take, although the meeting heard that the union could face interest and penalties on the €397,000 outstanding in tax liabilities.
    Union shop losses over the period ran to some €358,000 and general cost overruns within the organisation itself reached €210,000.

    Mr McNally said that formal structures had now been put in place to ensure that the situation does not arise again.
    Income

    In the meantime, the union is facing the prospect of seeking a hefty bank loan of up to €900,000 in order to pay its bills. It is unclear what financial involvement, if any, the university has in the union's affairs or whether it will be in a position to offer any assistance.

    However, referring to income received from student registration, union president Pat de Brun said: "We are in a pretty unique position because not many businesses can go in and say we have guaranteed income of €700,000 a year."


  • #515
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    And those people should have faced criminal charges because what they done was illegal. This is a completely separate matter, she's done nothing illegal has been done as far as I know, but the fact that the SU was a roaring disgrace before doesn't mean that people shouldn't be held to account now.


  • #516
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Jayop wrote: »
    Typical of you to do post counts. ;)

    Next you'll be explaining the process in painful detail over and over.

    Ah jay, you know me too well :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Jayop wrote: »
    And those people should have faced criminal charges because what they done was illegal. This is a completely separate matter, she's done nothing illegal has been done as far as I know, but the fact that the SU was a roaring disgrace before doesn't mean that people shouldn't be held to account now.

    She should be, but in an organisation of such corruption it's lunacy to talk about impeaching.


  • #518
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    She should be, but in an organisation of such corruption it's lunacy to talk about impeaching.

    So an organization can't or shouldn't attempt to change for the better?


  • #519
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Gone from "she saved them from dire lawbreaking consequences" (rubbish) to "she has a right to her pro life stance" (irrelevant) to "previous SU were bad" (wgaf?)

    Has anybody brought up trump yet I've a bingo card ready


  • #520
    JupiterKid
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 13,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    How times have changed. When I was a college undergraduate back in the 90s practically all SU presidents were strongly pro-choice in stance.

    Strange times we live in...

    Much as I am pro-choice, I don't think it fair or right to try to impeach an-anti-choice/pro-"life" SU president if they were elected fairly and properly, unless she lied in her election manifesto about her position on abortion and changed stance upon election.

    EDIT: I've read earlier posts here and it seems that the president did indeed lie about her personal views and respecting those held by the SU. She abused her position, wasted a lot of money and this is clear grounds for impeachment.

    The right to travel and information have been in place since the 14th Amendment in 1992, which was a direct result of the disgusting X case.


  • #521
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,701 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    tritium wrote: »
    Ah jay, you know me too well :pac:

    im soul reading you two


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JupiterKid wrote: »
    How times have changed. When I was a college undergraduate back in the 90s practically all SU presidents were strongly pro-choice in stance.

    Strange times we live in...

    Much as I an pro-choice, I don't think it fair or right to try to impeach an-anti-choice/pro-"life" SU president if they elected fairly and properly, unless she lied in her election manifesto about her position on abortion and changed stance upon election.

    Did you read even a single post itt?

    This is literally what she did


  • #523
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,701 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    tritium wrote: »
    No, the vote is going ahead because they could get 1200 students to sign the petition, about 4% of the voting population, at the second attempt- thats all really, no one knows how many of them actually care enough to vote on the issue. In the last SU election the turnout was about 10%-11%, and to be honest the 90% who didnt bother gives you a better feel for how little most students actually care about student politics

    wgats the rools on impreachemy
    i thiught ist sould be a starifgh 51 but i assume its 51 of voting so 5 or 6 present might n tarine her


  • #524
    JupiterKid
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 13,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    pilly wrote: »
    And yet boardsies seem to care an awful lot.

    That's probably because many of us were students back when student politics was much more radical and anti-establishment. There was a lot to fight for back then. The Church were still pretty powerful and many senior TDs and Govt ministers were openly anti-equality.

    Even then, many if not most students didn't care much for the SU or student politics. It appears much fewer do now.


  • #525
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Jayop wrote: »
    So an organization can't or shouldn't attempt to change for the better?

    Of course it should but the notion that this impeachment is about financial probity is laughable


  • #526
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Of course it should but the notion that this impeachment is about financial probity is laughable

    That's a part of it but as has been said over and over and over here it's not the main problem. The main problem is the dishonesty of saying one thing to get elected and then doing a full about turn immediately after taking office.


  • #527
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Tigger wrote: »
    wgats the rools on impreachemy
    i thiught ist sould be a starifgh 51 but i assume its 51 of voting so 5 or 6 present might n tarine her

    Straight majority wins but 10% of the student population needs to vote for it to be valid. Given only 11% actually voted in the full student elections her best strategy may well be just to call for a boycott of the vote! Apathy would probably do the rest.

    If she does survive the impeachment the atmosphere in the SU meetings is going to be a bundle of laughs...


  • #528
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    tritium wrote: »
    Straight majority wins but 10% of the student population needs to vote for it to be valid. Given only 11% actually voted in the full student elections her best strategy may well be just to call for a boycott of the vote! Apathy would probably do the rest.

    If she does survive the impeachment the atmosphere in the SU meetings is going to be a bundle of laughs...

    Aye boycott is certain to be her best bet. However people have a tendency to come out and vote when they see there's an issue. A normal SU election means nothing to most students but so many people in college are pro choice that I'd be amazed if they can't rise the 3.5k odd required.


  • #529
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Of course it should but the notion that this impeachment is about financial probity is laughable
    I think they've been quite open that it's about her breaking her mandate (and on more than just this occasion) to be honest, the financial aspect has typically been a rebuttal of her excuse that they could have been fined up to €4,000 (despite having not been fined in over 20 years of publishing this info) when it cost €8,000 to republish.


  • #530
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Jayop wrote: »
    That's a part of it but as has been said over and over and over here it's not the main problem. The main problem is the dishonesty of saying one thing to get elected and then doing a full about turn immediately after taking office.

    Is this enough to warrant an impeachment though? She's not the first politician to not hold a campaign promise , and so far she's only been in the job a few weeks and hasn't got much else to work with


  • #531
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Is this enough to warrant an impeachment though? She's not the first politician to not hold a campaign promise , and so far she's only been in the job a few weeks and hasn't got much else to work with

    It's literally a 100% reversal of one of their core ideals that she promised she wouldn't do. Yeah I think it's a disgrace and more than enough to sack her for. I also think that they were morons to trust her in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Lets be honest here, this stinks of a witch-hunt. I don't share her views but from both the tone and the quick turnaround to impeach there was clearly a group waiting for her to slip up so they could attack. There is also a real viciousness to it that doesn't sit well with me but unfortunately it seems to be where we've gotten to as a society.

    I don't see the need for the nuclear option of impeachment or other sabbat 'no confidence' straight out of the gates unless that the goal from the get-go. I'd understand calling for impeachment if she had removed all evidence of abortion options but links to the websites to find the information were left. She followed independent legal advice and left information within the document that goes out against her personal beliefs. The whole Sabbat team (including the President) come across terrible in this, they are all acting like children; refusing to communicate or find common ground.

    As an aside, if this legal issue was known over the years by previous SU Presidents then serious questions should be raised about them. I have no issues if they, or other sabbats, wanted to go out on their shield as martyrs for this issue but they opened every volunteer up to being prosecuted for handing out these documents. I know for a fact during my time in college (be it about 10 years ago) none of the volunteers were advised that they were breaking the law and allowed to make their own choice. Just because no one was prosecuted does not absolve them of their responsibilities.


  • #533
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,309 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Billy86 wrote: »
    She didn't have to break any law, besides the fact that this info has been published for over 20 years with no legal repercussions she always had the option to step down. Instead, she broke her promise and mandate to defer any issues related to abortion or the 8th to her colleagues who were very clearly against her final decision.

    Clearly that exact info was not published for over 20 years unless they were very much ahead of the times with their websites for abortion pills.
    She kept a promise she either couldn't keep or given that she may well have gone seeking this legal advise herself despite her promise to not get involved in such matter, never intended to keep. Given that she tried to block other efforts relating to pro choice/pro life by the very people she had promised and was mandated to defer to on such matters, there's a very strong chance it was the latter.

    I think the mention of her trying to get involved in class reps/stand are total red-herrings. I can't see anywhere that she said she would give no input whatsoever regarding the subject. She tried to give her opinion and the decision was delegated.

    People are having a go at her for this and using it as reasons to impeach her when it is her actually following her promise. They are clearly just trying to find or twist anything to impeach her.

    This is personal above any actions taken.


  • #534
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Clearly that exact info was not published for over 20 years unless they were very much ahead of the times with their websites for abortion pills.



    I think the mention of her trying to get involved in class reps/stand are total red-herrings. I can't see anywhere that she said she would give no input whatsoever regarding the subject. She tried to give her opinion and the decision was delegated.

    People are having a go at her for this and using it as reasons to impeach her when it is her actually following her promise. They are clearly just trying to find or twist anything to impeach her.

    This is personal above any actions taken.

    That's exactly it. They are trying to throw as much mud as possible. The only thing she has done is make an editorial decision in a magazine based on legal advice on a topic she apparently said she would delegate before being elected. It's a ludicrous thing to try impeach someone for.

    This is gonna be just another nail in the coffin for the repeal the 8th campaign. The likes of Iona won't even have to do any campaigning at all at this rate. You have PBP tearing down posters they disagree with, student unions impeaching people with anti abortion views and attacks on the characters of any public anti abortion persona.


  • #535
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    That's exactly it. They are trying to throw as much mud as possible. The only thing she has done is make an editorial decision in a magazine based on legal advice on a topic she apparently said she would delegate before being elected. It's a ludicrous thing to try impeach someone for.

    This is gonna be just another nail in the coffin for the repeal the 8th campaign. The likes of Iona won't even have to do any campaigning at all at this rate. You have PBP tearing down posters they disagree with, student unions impeaching people with anti abortion views and attacks on the characters of any public anti abortion persona.

    I love it, you know the reason why they are trying to impeach her. You know she lied. You know she wants to change to change the su democratic stance on choice.

    Yet somehow, everyone should go f*ck themselves because of is referendum a long way away.


  • #536
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    I love it, you know the reason why they are trying to impeach her. You know she lied. You know she wants to change to change the su democratic stance on choice.

    I do know why they are trying to impeach her. They don't like her politics. She may have gone in with the best of intentions but, as many politicians find, it's not as easy to do something when you are actually in power. She acted in the legal interest of the SU as she is required to do.

    As to her lying, I've been looking for what she is supposed to have promised. I found a quote from another member of the executive saying she promised to stay clear of issues relating to the 8th. This issue is relating to the 14th amendment. Perhaps you could clarify that with a source for her promise.

    I'm sure she would love to change the SU's stance on abortion. I don't see complying with the law as a way to do this, especially as the magazine still contained advice on where to get the removed information.
    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Yet somehow, everyone should go f*ck themselves because of is referendum a long way away.

    Not really sure what point you are making there. But the only people I think should go **** themselves are those that try and bully and intimidate persons of an opposing political view.


  • #537
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,377 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Iona?


  • #538
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Jayop wrote: »
    Iona?

    Do you not know who they are or something? They are a Catholic advocacy group who campaign against things like same sex marriage and abortion. They will likely be the main campaigners against the abortion referendum next year.


  • #539
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,084 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    Not really sure what point you are making there. But the only people I think should go **** themselves are those that try and bully and intimidate persons of an opposing political view.

    So you would also be against people who force their beliefs on others?


  • #540
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    VinLieger wrote: »
    So you would also be against people who force their beliefs on others?

    In most cases, laws being the exception.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,084 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    In most cases, laws being the exception.

    Why are laws an acceptable exception to this? There are plenty of instances throughout history of unjust laws, so i don't see why you automatically assume laws have to be unquestionably inviolable. As an example if certain laws are objectively proven to be discriminatory then are they not unjust and deserve to be disobeyed?


Advertisement