ULSU - yay or nay

everybody just walk away

OhMSGlive wrote: »

(Not accusing anyone of trolling, just saying that you're all feeding the fire and that it'll get out of control eventually.)

looking for this :P

ninty9er wrote: »

I thknk that's a fair assessment, the sabbaticals don't run the election process however, we just assist in it.

I know there are issues, but they are not issues that are hugely beyond what would have been experienced in previous years.

I'm sure previously sabbats haven't gotten on, but any in-house fighting didn't take place on boards/facebook.

Similar problems/issues might have come up in previous years, however the issues this year are a lot more public this year.

1. The Communications Officers abuse of power to promote her own personal blog - (http://www.ulsuelect.com/2012/?p=363)
2. The Education Officers attack on another student - (http://www.thomondstudenttimes.com/index.php/features/188-transparency)
3. The withholding of knowledge about charges to the medical centre -(http://www.thomondstudenttimes.com/index.php/news/186-medicalcentre)
4. The Communications Officer and the Campaigns Officers attacking each other over social media - (http://www.ulsuelect.com/2011/?p=488)

Just to name a few. Questions still remain about all of these. What has been done about these examples of unprofessional behaviour?

1. Derek, you've dodged the point. The point was the ULSU fb page (being utilized by Kelly) was used to direct traffic away from a source that it is the persons job to promote. The exact content was on AnFocal. It's not as though Kelly's personal blog had another content on it.
I could add other words here, but then legal threats might be thrown around (oh wait... that has already happened relating to this point)

2. Condoning sabbatical officers public attacks on other students... :rolleyes:

4. It is, to a point. For this example, it appears to be more a personal matter dramatically poorly handled. Who writes that on facebook and then tags all the people they work with?!? And then what Kelly wrote on her sucommunications blog too? (Interestingly that site appears to have been taken down recently.)
Aoife's stuff... I'm not sure that was still the personal use of facebook as she (supposedly) was referring to something a student told her as a part of her job. (She even states further down, from her personal fb page, "I'm just voicing it for them as my role of elected officer")

ninty9er wrote: »

1. Even the arch nemisis of this person:p has admitted that's not an abuse of power. Our page promotes peoples individual work from time to time, we just don't make a habit of it.

What is this, some superhero comic now? Who plays the role of the arch nemesis?

Out of touch....there's a really good song by that name. I really enjoy it

reunion wrote: »

Well you have insulted him there... This raises questions, is an focal a su propaganda tool or an independent student paper?

Up to now it has been a SU Propaganda tool, nobody could have been under any other illusion. That's being removed.


Quite frankly given that TST didn't give the right of reply I'm not going to bother. It's a standard journalistic practice, and I've taken bigger people than TST to task on it.

reunion wrote: »

You wonder why voting was 1,000 less this year or why students feel disconnected with the SU? Some students care, why are you ignoring them because some don't care?

Voting was poor because, as I told all of the candidates when they were waiting for results, the ERB and SU Staff made a bigger effort at getting them votes than they did themselves. It's as simple as that. Last year the candidates made an effort, that's the difference.

ninty9er wrote: »

Voting was poor because, as I told all of the candidates when they were waiting for results, the ERB and SU Staff made a bigger effort at getting them votes than they did themselves. It's as simple as that. Last year the candidates made an effort, that's the difference.

Whoa! hold your horses Nelly, Thats and unfair statement D, I found the candidates and the election race to be just as extreme as any other year. maybe because you were not involved you saw how elections look to those who are voting and not directly involved elections themselves.

This year saw massive changes that should justify a higher voter turn out

The online videos by Thomond Student times were a massive seller especially for those that were on Erasmus and co-op. They were fantastic and an added Boost to the promotion of the elections and the candidates themselves.

The fact that the Union has been very much in the publics eye over the past year screams for either (a the want for dramatic change or (b want to see the place go to shizzle due to the negative truth and often mistruths that have been publicized over the past year...

I could not get directly involved with the 'getting students to vote' part I could only do the getting to vote for me bit but I think in terms of getting people to vote it might be something for the ERB to aid the possible candidates in prommoting voting in the weeks leading up to the vote where possible candidates can show face and talk about the importance of voting. The push for voting only really took shape on tuesday with most people not knowing what was going on till friday.

I dont think its down to US the candidates everybody was wrecked I remember looking around at people early in the morning and meeting them doing the rounds of college houses in the night - 100% put in by every body.

Timing and the bank holiday are one thing but I will honestly say that the negative press was a massive turn off for most students. I had my part to play in that and it showed in the vote for myself. nothing kicks you up the arse more than a result D and it showed that week.

Nothing gives you more drive to cop yourself on and work harder rather than apportion blame.

Cydoniac wrote: »

From my viewpoint as a student, the elections came and went in a flash. By the time I actually saw people getting into it it was only days away until the results. It was really short-lived and there wasn't enough time for people to be able to stop and notice.

I think the fact that we had the Monday of election week off hurt as well. I'd wager a lot of people didn't come back to Limerick until Monday night or the middle of the day on Tuesday, which'd give only one proper day of campaigning that they'd have been exposed to.

And just from my experience this year as opposed to last year, the presence of campaign teams was way down. The only person's leaflet I was actively handed was David Hartery's, and unless we got stuff and my housemates never told me, Kelly seemed to be the only one that canvassed Dromroe.

It's also possible that people didn't vote because of all the controversy that surrounded the Union this year. A general lethargy with the system, etc, etc. (lethargy might be the wrong word... but it's the best I can think of right now)

I know this is rehashing old ground, but serious work will need to be done by the sabbats next year to turn this around. I mean, there're always going to be people that come on boards and Facebook to say "Ah the SU is just a big clique" (something I believed myself in first year before actually getting involved in a small way), but compared to last year (which is all I have to go on) the amount of pretty legitimate gripes with how things have been handled this year is way up.

/mytwocents

bambismom wrote: »

Derek,

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you here. I have been involved in campaigns for the last four years and was a campaign manager last year and this year. I think it is severely unfair for you to say that the candidates and campaign teams did not make as much as an effort as last year. Last year there was more candidates, larger campaign teams, no cap on spending, better weather, and generally more people around campus that were not avoiding the SU like the plague.

This year the campaign teams worked constantly to drum up support and interest in their campaigns but unfortunately, campus was dead. I personally stood in the courtyard every day for a few hours and the foot traffic was dismal compared to other years. If I was to judge election week on the amount of sleep I got this year, I would say that I made more of an effort this year than I did others.

I am not making a personal attack on you Derek but you need to wake up, cop on and stop blaming people that make a genuine effort to help the SU. I know the sabbats and staff were out and about more this year than others and I applaud them for that. It does not however mean that you can place the blame on a very small minority of students that got involved with campaigns and tried to up the profile of the SU that has been tarnished beyond repair this year!

I have to take issue with that. This year I spent more than half of election day canvassing the campus for people to vote and the only place I ran into candidates was Plaza/Foundation Building/Library and Courtyard. That does not constitute a campaign.

Cap on spending is news to me, though I did recommend it be put in place.

The effort by the candidates was nowhere near what it has been in any of the 6 years I've been involved in them.

For people in Kemmy, Health Science, Schrodinger, CSIS not to even know elections were on was poor. Postering was concentrated on the Main Building bar 2 or 3 of the candidates.

The only reason I left the office was because of the number of people who didn't know elections were on whe I asked them about what they thought.

It was a shockingly poor campaign, more reminiscint of a by-election for 1 position or a non-sabbatical election.

I've already pointed out that a number of members of Exec went out as the SU promoting elections for the first time. The Union never felt the need to promote elections before, this was something the candidates did, but it appears that can no longer be relied upon based on what was seen this year.

When are people going to realise there are more than 30 buldings on campus and the Courtyard isn't remotely close to being the centre of campus like it was 7/8 years ago.

I don't need to be told how much effort goes into a campaign, I've been involved in them for years, but effort needs to be focused on where the votes are, not where the candidates want the votes to be.

Edit: Just to point out that I'm not keyboard warrioring on this. I said it to the candidates when they were waiting for results.

Doctor_Mossie wrote: »

@Wnolan1992- Is apathy the word you're looking for?

That'll do nicely!

Thank you, kind sir.

Derek, by blocking people on this, you are surely just proving the point that yourself and the rest of the SU don't care about the student body. I've found that it's the antithesis of a clique and is of a pack mentality.

Your ambitions to be a politician are widely known, and if you can't take the criticism and abuse from college students how on earth are you going to be able to be able to take it from the general population on more important matters. So maybe stop blocking people (or at least gloating about it )

And regarding the TST article questioning the lack of information given to students about the medical charges, are you saying that you had no knowledge until it was announced to students that it was happening? If so I find it very hard to believe that the SU president knew nothing of the charges and even harder to believe that nobody was told in the run up to this decision.

shabouwcaw wrote: »

Derek, I spoke to you and Tara as you were going around the KBS with your voting sign personally. So that's simply not true. I (and my campaign team) spent a large amount of time in the KBS and on the North Campus, where myself and Kelly spent ages on Friday evening. Adam, Paddy and Ronan also did lecture addresses in the KBS, I did one (I went down for 3, but lecturers did not give permission) too.

There were a number of factors that played into this year having a low turn out. I would personally have liked to have run a bigger campaign with more flashy stuff, but I am still paying off the overdraft I took out to pay for what I did buy, even though I spent under the campaign limit of €250 euro, that's still more money than I have. So the financial realities cannot be avoided. Even more so, the fact the weather wasn't great and the bank holiday and all the issues with the SU this year meant people either weren't interested or weren't about. It wasn't even just an issue with voters, it was impossible to get people to campaign this year. All credit to Adam for getting as many campaigners as he did and especially to Ronan for doing so much with as few as he had.

There's an institutional problem here, call it a democratic deficit if you will, that won't be solved by scapegoating candidates. Though I guess your old stock response of "well if you want to change things maybe you should consider running" was getting old, so it's time to change tack and blame them too?

Apologies if I have left bits out, but I simply didn't recall that.

There were a number of factors, no doubt, the Union being one, but one incumbent was reelected and another was a handful of votes away, so the level of disillusionment amongs the general student body is certainly not as high as "heads" would like to think.

I was most definitely unaware until now that there was a €250 spending limit. Just on that point, I'm still paying for my campaign, so it's a welcome change in the right direction.

My point relates more to the fact that in previous years you couldn't go anywhere on campus without being confronted by a canvasser of at least one candidate, that was definitely not the case this year.

I wish everyone the best, but saying the financial issues and their fallout were the cause of 2,000 less people voting than last year just doesn't add up.

bambismom wrote: »

Did you not sit on the ERB that put this cap on spending?

Communication problems say what??

Derek didn't sit on the ERB.

I did however, sit on the ERB as a class rep, and while a cap on spending was proposed, it was not implemented. It would have been difficult enough to police.