The Union Council Thread

irish_goat wrote: »

So there's to be a new sabb officer for clubs and socs basically...

Clubs, Socs and Union Development

Minutes of Union Council, 9/2/2011


Apologies from Jennifer McConnell, Derek Maher, Sarah Davies, Davin Convey, Feargal Corrigan.

RO Ciaran: Introduction: “We have a big agenda today so we will try to move along quickly through the agenda. Firstly regarding the adoption of the minutes from the previous meeting, would anyone like to raise any objections or changes?

*No objections or changes noted*

RO Ciaran: No Changes or objections to minutes of previous meeting. Minutes adopted. Similarily with regard to the agenda?

*No objections or changes noted*

RO Ciaran: Agenda adopted without change. Moving on to correspondence, there is no correspondence to be discussed.

Aengus: Can we take report as read?

*No objections to taking report as read*

Aengus: No questions, so we’ll move on.

RO Ciaran: Next item on the agenda is an alteration to the closure of the window for nominations for elections. The closure time for putting forward names for nominations is currently 10pm, which means officers must be present until that time. We wish to change to 4pm.

Aengus: The formal change will be to section 2/4 C, “10pm” shall be deleted and “4pm” added.

Grace: As the Student Union office closes at that time, could we close the nominations earlier in order to avoid conflict with the office staff’s busy time? A change to 12pm (noon) might be better.

Aengus: Agreed.

Motion to alter Sect 2/4 C, delete “10pm”, and insert “12pm” (noon).

*Grace Seconded*

Ayes 21
Nays 0
Abstain 2

*Motion carries*

RO Ciaran: Next to the report from the VP for Communications.

Rob: Firstly thanks to Karl O’Dwyer for assistance on the Print this issue. My congratulations and thanks.

Secondly, we would like to address the problem with notice boards on campus. Currently, if someone wishes to advertise to sell a book, laptop, grinds or accomdation they must place notices on all boards around the campus. This takes up space on the boards as well as time and effort on behalf of the seller. In order to simplify this we have set up a website market that will be going in-line in the next few days. As such, I would like to bring forward a motion to stop allowing people to put up these notices and restrict the notice boards to college, society and Union business.

Motion (First original) Maynooth Student’s Union formally prohibits the selling of books, laptops, accomodation and grinds on notice boards on campus.

Leanne: What is to stop people putting up notices anyway? Currently unstamped notices should not be present.

Mick: I am in charge of taking down notices that have not been sanctioned.

Aisling: Why not amalgamted with new SU site?

Rob: It is, the full URL is market.nuimsu.com.

Darren: Would it not be better to say, formally, that selling of all goods and services is prohibited on notice boards?

Liz: Or to say SU and SU sanctioned items?

Rob: I don’t want to exclude new services or products that might be usefully advertised this way. Just in case.

Lauren: Will we be taking down notices that are currently in bathroom stalls and other areas of campus.

Rob: Those are not allowed and are taken down already when noticed.

Gene: Would it not be better to wait, and if the site is a success pass a motion to prohibit a motion later if it does?

Rob: I think that passing a motion now will ensure that people use the service, to give people an incetive to move.

Leanne: Will this not undermine the second hand bookstore run by the SU?

Rob: Books are already being sold on external sites such as boards.ie. I am not convinced that this will take business from the store.

Liz: Is there a way we could catalogue the books in the book store and amalgamate the site and the store, so that if a book is in the store it would be visible on the site too?

Rob: Good idea. The bookstore is a great compliment to the site, as it allows browsing and some people are just more comfortable in that environment.

Sarah: Would it not be a better idea to restrict use to Clubs, Societies, Union and Union sanction materials?

Rob: Motion (Second Draft): Maynooth Student’s Union formally prohibits posting of everything with the exceptions of Clubs, Societies, SU materials from notice boards.
mstances
Andrew: Would it not be advisible to allow items under special circumstances.

Liz: The stamp is already needed to post anything to the boards, so we can continue to do this in special circumstances.

Kelly: What is people just start sticking posters on the wall beside the notice boards.

Rob: Notices that are put up on the wall are already torn down, since they are not sanctioned.

Rob: Motion (final draft): Maynooth Student’s Union formally prohibits any articles other than Club, Societies, SU and SU sanctioned materials on its noticeboards.

Liz: Second

Aye: 30
Nay: 2
Abstain: 0

*Motion carries*

RO Ciaran: Report on the Green committee.

Declan: There is supposed to be a meeting on Monday. We are working on recommendations and there will be more on that for the next Council meeting. Also no Society is holding a green week this year, so there will be more on that at the next meeting too. If there are any issues I can be contacted at my e-mail address finance@nuimsu.com.

RO Ciaran: Any questions? Okay, we are now moving on to the next item on the agenda. The article on Gay Marriage on the Print.

Andrew: I’d like to amalgamate this with the next order of business as it is all related to the Print. Basically, on a general front there are numerous issues and errors with formatting, spelling and grammar. I have here the December issue and there are 13 errors on the front page alone, and they continue inside. This doesn’t look good for the university, Maynooth already seems to have a reputation as a second rate university and this only adds to that perception outside the university.

There is also the issue which has been previously raised at Council meeting regarding the printing of the Print in the UK. It was said that this was because of size issues, but there does not seem to be much point in using this larger format if the resolution of images and text is so poor. I have here the November edition *holds up centre pages of Nov issue* the writing in these images is not even legible. Advertisements within the Print are also of poor quality and low resolution, repeated two or three times throughout the paper. The visibility and resolution of text is also and issue, even the bannered name, the Print, is pixelated.

With regard to the Gay Marriage article in December’s issue, I would like to preface this by saying I have no personal problem with the article or with gay marriage and I am voicing concerns which have been brought to me about the portryal within the article. The initial LGBT section is fact and is fine. But other parts which are opinion and many people may not agree with, and are not accredited to an individual, as such it appears that this is the opinion of the SU and therefore the Student Body as a whole. The issue is very important, but the article was written in a way which those who already agree with gay marriage would find funny, but which would alienate and not sway those already convinced. The joking manner of the article especially would alienate. A couple of suggestions would be that the Union would endeavour to print within Ireland from next year, and also that articles that do not represent fact and are not entirely representative of the student body should have by-lines and accredited authorship.

I have also been approached by at least three people in the last week who wished to submit articles to the Print but do not know how.

Also regarding the website, it has not been updated in a long time, many images and links are broken. It also appears riddled with spam comments and mails. I also did two Who.is searches and the domain name for the college is expires today.

Rob: On the issue of the website, until recently it has not been possible to update the site from on campus as it was treated in the same way as Limewire and file sharing by internet security system. Until a week ago, all work and updates to the site had to be done off campus.

With regard to the spelling, formatting and grammar issues, the old Print was 10-12,000 words, the new one is now 54-56,000 words. This all needs to be proof read in a short amount of time, as little as 48 hours. For the current issue of the Print, which has a deadline tonight, we were up until 5am proof-reading. As for submitting articles to the Print, they can be e-mailed to

In relation to the printing of the Print in the UK, there are 11 college newspapers in the country. Only one prints here. There is more tax on printing in Ireland and that drives up costs, it would be far more expensive. Also, the format we require is not available, we would have to settle for regular broadsheet or a tabloid size. It does not suit for our purposes. Trinity and UCD have similar printing policies to us.

The quality and resolution of images in the Print is really about editing. In July I requested a new Adobe editing suite as the old suite was not suitable and too out of date for our purposes. The old program was buggy and crashed constantly. Each picture needs to be altered for editing, digital cameras and photographs use the three primary colours to print, however newsprint is in a four colour spectrum. It takes about 2 mins to edit each photo and there are hundreds in each issue. Combined with the old suite crashing, the size makes it very time consuming. As I said I ordered the new suite in July, the 29th and only received it about 2 weeks ago.

Andrew: Why did it take so long to aquire thew the new suite?

Rob: The procurement procedure used in the college is very long and complicated. We cannot just go out and buy the product. It has to pass through this proceedure.

Liz: This is a new paper, with a new format, it takes time to adjust to the new size and format. There was lots of work to do and to get right. On it being printed in Manchester, if it were possible and economically viable we would of course have it printed here. Ideally everything used within the college would be sourced in Ireland but that is not practical.

*Not sure of speaker*: On the content of the Print. There are issues with the layout, having serious, factual articles beside funny articles to be precise. Would it not be possible to have two sections, a first, serious section and all the funny stuff at the end?

Rob: There is a balance we have to strike with the paper and that balance is hard to get right. But the fact is that we have space to fill. Articles take a certain amount of space and there is limited space on each page, if we don’t mix articles we will have blank areas on pages.

Unsure of speaker: I don’t want to be flippant about this, but if we separated the articles with serious in the front and funny humourous in the back, the serious articles would not be read. I think it is unfair to say that the Print has not improved since last year. Last years paper was a much shorter magazine and we should applaud Rob for his efforts.

Liz: I would propose that we move on and open this for discussion at a later date. This discussion does need to be had, but we are pressed for time.

1st Year Rep: Getting back to the article on gay marriage. The main body of the article was fair, but on the sides there were representations of what people of faith and belief believe in respect to the issue. As a practicing Catholic, I found that those were inaccurate representations of different faiths beliefs. I felt it was saying that people of belief in the college believe these things to be true because of their religious beliefs and I think it is not representative of the student body.

Sarah: One of the articles not having a by-line is my fault, I submitted the articles and forgot to add my name to one. The comments you refer were all taken from website and the sources were referenced.

1st Year Rep: It just seemed to suggest that these were the opinions of all those who were religious or against gay marriage.

RO Ciaran: Next item of business the proposal for the new Constitution.

Aengus: *Aengus presents changes and alterations being made in new Constitution and explains hole in current one* Question?


Grace: On the Part-Time students, they don’t currently pay Union dues, will they now be forced to pay?

Aengus: No, Part-Time students already pay more to study that full time students and we believe that the dues should come from this excess payment.

Grace: Regarding article 10.1.8 of the new Constitution. Should succession in a case where the president or other member of the Council be written into the Constitution and not on the whim of the President.

Aengus: Concern is that some of the jobs are very different and that it would be best to appoint the person most suited to the position.

Rob: It is best if the person who succeeds is the best person in the job, it seems a better way to divide talent that restricting it to a certain position.

Grace: Should all those who run or are elected not be capable?

Rob: Well I don’t think people vote for the VP Welfare or VP Comms think, this person would make a good President or VP Welfare, respectively, if the elected candidate was no longer in a position to continue.

Grace: On my next point, from Articles 10.6 through 10.9. Will all have a vote?

Aengus: Yes, it is just clarification.

Andrew: Is there any indication that this will cost more with additional full time member of the council?

Aengus: No we do not expect it to.

Andrew: On the note of funding for Societies and Clubs capitation, I realise that the intent is to ensure continuity, but is there any way to ensure that some of the capitation is invested and not all just spent within the year. What is to stop a group just spending all there money without considering the future?

Aengus: Each society will apply for own capitation, but the committee will decide the outcome.

Liz: The Constitutional Review (CR) committee was elected and has had no meeting yet this semester. As a point of order, considering the importance of these alterations to the Constitution, is it advisable to go ahead with the the referendum when the group has not met.

Aengus: The CR committee met last semester and is only obliged to meet once in the year, not once in the semester.

Leanne: We also met individually and spoke at length about the issues, we had plenty of time to return with any issues or problems.

Liz: I have committee on Education and Welfare, and they are not conducted by e-mail. I know the requirement is once a year, but given the gravity of the change I feel it is necessary to meet and that not doing so is a serious issue which undermines the committee.

Aengus: That is a fair point, the discussion was had, but this does bring up a point of order you are right.


Grace: If the motion passes, we will only have five term days to ensure people have enough knowledge about the alterations to make an informed decision. It does feel like the alteration is being pushed through very quickly.

Aengus: we need to have the referendum in the current time frame under the present Constitution. The Constitution gives a maximum of 5 term days from the motion being passed to the referendum being held. The positions must be advertised at least 15 days before the election and the election cannot be held more than 30 days after the beginning of term. If we are to ensure that the Constitution comes into effect next year then we are stuck with this timetable.

Liz: The issue is not the Constitution itself, my concern is over timing. I would prefer a longer engagement window and to have the conversation uncluttered by other concerns. Next week is Shag Week and is extremely important, we need to involve students in both and I am concerned that the council will be spread too thin to be able to adequately explain and promote both.

RO Ciaran: *refers to Letter from 2007 regarding the 8th of March 2007 referendum where decision was overturned, which states the Guardianship position on how referendum should be presented* (mail available on request)

Aen: I realise that the Guardianship stated that two weeks would be a better time frame to inform the student body, but the Constitution limits us to 5 days.

Liz: I just feel that this is done not because it is what is best for the Student Body but so that new Reps elected this year will be elected under the new Constitution.

Mick: As St Pat’s Rep. I would have to state that I would strongly oppose a move that would push back the recognition of the students I represent for another year.

Declan: I received the Constitution and was able to read and e-mail questions and got quick responses on all my questions. Not only is the 5 day maximum in the Constitution but it also seems a reasonable amount of time to read and question the document if you are interested. Aengus could disseminate the presentation he just made and well as the power point around campus and to the student body. If people are interested they can speak to their reps or the Council members.

Rob: No process is perfect, but I think this document is as good as it is going to get.

Liz: I still think the time-frame and the clash with Shag week is a problem, we have quite a small team and for my part, organising and running the Shag Week campaign is in the description of my official duties. The Constitution is not within my mandate and I do not feel I can campaign adequately on both issues, so I cannot support the motion without enough time to inform the students.

Emma: As Aengus mentioned in his presentation there were two calls for involvement and opinion last year. People had the time. Does it affect the election if we do not pass the motion?

Aengus: No, it does not.

Rob: I feel the time is sufficent.

Leanne (I think): If the Constitution says it is a five day minimum why do we have to have the minimum consultation time?

Aengus: The five days is a maximum, not a minimum.

Leanne: But where the problems with the current constitution not because it was pushed through too quickly too?

Aengus: Yes, but that is also the point of getting this through as there are so many problems with the current constitution.

Andrew: Could the election not just be moved back a week?

RO Ciaran: There is a current requirement that there be at least 15 days notice of advertisment of positions before the elections and since the election cannot be held more than 30 days after the start of term we are stuck with this date.

Sarah: Can it only be five days ever for a referendum?

Aengus: No, we could pass a motion to go forward with the campaign and then call the actual referendum at a later date, but that would delay implementation by a year.

(Unsure of Speaker): Considering the constraints is there any point in the year when the campaign would not clash with something? If we move it back one week it clashes with the general election. There is something on almost every term week around college.

Liz: The point is that people are only going to find out tomorrow and they will have to vote on Wednesday. If we had had the vote and document earlier we could spread it through the campus and it would allow comment. My job is to represent the students and I do not feel this represents their best interests.

Dec: The problem is with the time-frame. I don’t think anyone can say that they disagree strongly with a single article or change. I have looked over the document. As Aengus has said the Council is expanding beyond what was envisaged, there are sentences missing from the current doc which undermine the Council and the entire Union. People wil have one week to view and comment, that seems plenty of time when we were able to organise thousands of students for the fees march on very short notice. If the class reps get involved with disseminating the info we can do this. I respect your position Liz, but I have to disagree.

Sarah: We could sit down and put together a time table so there are always people available to deal with both Shag Week and the Constitution. If the Reps are involved there will be plenty of people to cover both.

Andrew: I agree. No one thinks that one is any less important than the other and we can do both.

Grace: This isn’t a personal comment Aengus, I know how hard you have worked. But would it not be better to take time so as to get a larger number of students to vote for the changes.

Aengus: The reforms need 15% to pass, so if we do not get the numbers it will fail regardless.

Mick: Our register to vote campaign was organised at short enough notice too and we had very good numbers for that in one day. It is just a matter of asking people if they are involved and if not explain the issue to them.

Keith: We have discussed the timeline and it is short but that is because of the constitution and we are amending the constitution because it is unsuitable. The 5 term days is 7 days with Saturday and Sunday so that should be plenty of time.

Aengus: Now I just want to clarify articles 10.10.5 and 10.11.5 regarding eligibility of Post grad and 1st reps to vote. *Aengus outlines reasons for and against allowing thsese reps to vote*

Keith: Speaking as a former 1st year Rep, I see both sides of the argument. But it does not seem correct, especially personally, that these reps are part of a group, speaking and discussing as a group and when it comes to voting your optinion is invalidated. If on the Council you should have a vote.

Kelly: I think if you take it upon yourself to run for 1st year Rep or Post Grad Rep you are aware of the responsibility and believe you can handle that responsibility. I see no reason to deny the votes.

(Unsure of Speaker): Is there not a further Question that is these reps have votes why do the other years not have voting reps?

Grace: This came up before, as 1st year rep and Post-Grad are special cases, they were not in the college when the elections proper are held, so the student’s they represent were not able to vote or run.

Andrew; I don’t think there is anything that can be done about multiple reps, if you do three subjects from three different faculties and are in a club or soc you have four reps there and I believe the more people we can approach the better.

Neil: I understand that they represent special needs due to election calendar, but why do they need the vote? Why specific groups get more representation? I also think that Clubs and Socs represent their members in different ways than the faculties and thus are a different case. What justifies the vote?

Lauren: The 1st years represent over 2,000 students and the Post-Grads about 1,700, as such they are at least a third of the student body. So we are effectively disenfranchising one third of the students were are supposed to represent.

Motion: Should 1st Year and Post Grad reps have a vote or not?

Yes: They should.
No: They should not.

Aye: 17
Nay:5
Abstain: 7

Motion carries.

Aengus: No moving on to the substantive question of the Constitution itself.

Motion: That the Union Council is to direct the Returns Officer to hold a referendum on the adoption of the 2011 draft constitution as Constitution of Union.

Andrew seconds.

Aye: 23
Nay: 1
Abstain: 0

Motion carries.

RO Ciaran: AOB

Kelly: Would it be possible that from no one after the elections of class reps for their names and information to be disseminated through the student body to ensure that all are aware of their reps.

Aengus: We have mentioned this previously and it is being looked in to.

Close of meeting.

NUIMRO wrote: »

An Emergency Union Council will take place tonight at 7.30pm.
Venue TBC.

Venue is John Hume Lecture Theatre 7