« COMMENT: Leader debate – The Cam and Clegg Show | ARTS: Molière’s The Miser set to be Lyric’s last play in Elmwood Hall »
NEWS: Hot air rises to fever pitch as Council gets testy
Council Meeting Report: 29/04/2010
The Space last night played host to the latest in a series of fractious meetings of the Union’s student representative council. While the prevailing cliché casts students as apolitical layabouts, successive spirited meetings of the body have shown ego clashes and institutional bickering at least to be clearly transcendent of both age and stereotype.
Speaker Alex Redpath addressed councillors’ concerns after the last meeting’s failed vote of no-confidence; votes of no-confidence have been scheduled for VPs Barry Duffy and Paul Lilly at a planned Extraordinary Meeting on May 12th; The Gown’s office suspension was debated and President-Elect Gareth McGreevy’s controversial SUTV plans were reaffirmed.
BY KERRI-ANNE CAMPBELL AND LORCAN MULLEN
Current President Shane Brogan’s extensive overhaul of student-staff consultative committees (SSCCs) and in-school accountability was also passed.
Speaker Redpath told The Gown: “It was a disappointing night… I don’t think anyone would claim that this was an easy Council meeting to chair.”
Redpath faced strong criticism from the floor at the beginning of the night, defending his decision to remain despite a majority Council vote to strip him of the post prior to March’s sabbatical elections. A two-thirds majority is required to oust the Speaker.
Redpath, a second year law student, countered his critics, claiming “a couple of big wins this year”, making it clear that he is “perfectly happy to stand on”.
“With regards to my own resignation, I have made it clear that I will complete my term until the constitutionally mandated number of councillors remove me from office. I owe this not only to myself, but to my successors in this role. A speaker needs this constitutional protection to make the controversial decisions that are demanded of the chair.”
He went on to say, “Two thirds of the Council are required to remove the speaker, which would mean 51 members out of 77. There has never been a record of this many at a Council Meeting this year.”
A palpable sense of frustration only increased with discussion of the absence of vice-presidents Lilly and Duffy. Duffy did not send his apologies. President Brogan informed Council that Lilly cited illness earlier in the day. A number of councillors were confident that the duo had skipped the meeting to attend last night’s GAA formal. Lilly however spoke to The Gown on Facebook after the Council meeting. Post-formal revellers at the Eg on the other hand told The Gown that Lilly and Duffy were “across the street”. Readers may draw their own conclusions.
Concerns about the attitude and work ethic of the two VPs have been a recurrent theme in QUBSU politics this year, and councillors were not long in moving towards respective motions of no-confidence. President Brogan spoke out in unusually strident terms, stating that “some action needs to be taken here and now.”
Ponderous moves towards a confidence vote, led by Ryan Cushley, were unexpectedly derailed by councillor and management board member Anne Pauli, recurrent bête noire of the “Chuckle Brothers.” Pauli’s alternative proposal, the May 12th meeting of the Council, where Duffy and Lilly will learn their fate was passed instead.
Brogan told The Gown that he was “happy with what came from the floor” and confirmed that he had signed the Pauli petition initiating the Extraordinary Meeting process.
Councillor Colin Sloan stated, “It’s good to know that Council has decided to do something about the worst sabb [sabbatical officers] offenders of the year. They seem to be more concerned with working with GAA than the Council.”
Clerk to Council Dominic Doherty stated that this has “impacted upon their status” however, “no apology is not deemed to be a sackable offence”.
Last night, a seemingly stressed Lilly did not wish to make an on-record comment on the proceedings. Brogan confirmed this evening that the VP contacted him regarding his absence from work today, citing a scheduled doctor’s appointment.
In other news:
-A motion proposed by Cllr. Colin Sloan censuring the Union for its actions against The Gown this semester was deferred to the next meeting, pending today’s planned meeting between Brogan, Andrew Dodge and the Gown Trust, led by former Irish Times foreign correspondent Conor O’Clery.
While Sloan and assorted Gownies criticised the SU leadership in emphatic terms, Cllr. Pauli condemned the language of the motion (“an attack on freedom of speech”) as “ridiculous.”
In a separate discussion concerning redevelopment of Union facilities, Brogan told Council that the current Gown office will become a “society storage space”.
-A motion brought by Cathy Corbett and Darren Leckey calling for SUTV’s suspension pending “further research” was defeated.
-VP Paul Courtney dismissed claims from some QUB GAA members, recently aired on a Facebook campaign page, that the current redevelopment of the Dub sporting facilities somehow prejudiced the organisation.
Tags: council, Gown, Kerri-Anne Campbell, Lorcan Mullen, newspaper, qub, QUBSU, Queen's, queen's university, student, students, su, Union
This entry was posted on Friday, April 30th, 2010 at 6:03 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
@ John B. Dick
Let me thank you for not caring. You clearly care so little that you took time out of your day to post a rather large comment.
God, unknownmale, I'm jealous of your flexi-time. When I was young I always said, "When I grow up I want a job with flexi-time." It's good to see dreams realised, even if it's through some bitter no-hoper.
You fit the stereotype of a failure pretty well. I'm guessing that there'll be some point in your petty little life that some new recruit will come swanning into your office, with a degree, and automatically become your boss. He/she will be wonderfully friendly, but your bitter little mind will be able to do nothing better to do than to bitch to summer temps who don't care about your bruised ego.
Just like nobody here cares.
You're past it, GTFO.
@ high hights
firstly there's an "e" in heights
secondly 4000 people, many of them university graduates, applied for the last civil service recruitment campaign which was for positions 2 grades below mine, but you're right, your sarcasm is so cutting it really makes me want to give up my £20k a year salary, flexi-time, 30 days annual leave and massive public sector pension and go back to uni and get a degree in sociology or philosophy or some other absolutely pointless field. Its a pity that the civil service would pay 80% of my fees if I wanted to go back to be taught utter wank by some condescending middle-class failure whilst you're going to end up paying every penny of the gratuitous student loan and fees loan you took out and then pissed up against the wall in the Bot.
Personally I'm glad I never graduated from QUB, at least no-one could accuse me of graduating from a University who's alumni can't spell the words "heights" or "kids" as you have so kindly proven for me.
Please, before you try and rip on me again, download Firefox and activate the spellcheck function
@Peter Pansy I enjoyed you're comment there lol, I myself cannot wait for the craic. Popcorn too much?
@unknownmale why are you always so bitter in these comment sections? Also the SU job was good enough for you when you needed it so why throw in an unnecessary dig at staff still working there?
Why have Paul and Barry not given a response to The Gown on this? Silence perhaps speaks louder than words..
It takes 2/3rds of all councillors to remove a speaker. 76 councillors equals 51 councillors to oust him
Oh unknownmale I hope when I graduate I can work in the dole office just like you! And I would still get to reminisce over my Student days by posting on a student newspaper website. I then I would be all down with the kidds... init.
But back to the two air-heads who don't do any work...
unknownmale - way to fit the stereotype of a bitter and grumpy dole office worker!
@ SU Insider
I've got a real job, most people who graduated from my year at Queen's, wait for it, don't have real jobs. They're on the dole or still working in the SU Bars or supermarkets, or other bars despite having graduated three years ago, they come and see me in the dole and I send them on training courses because their degrees are worthless.
Alex Redpath says that he would need 55 votes to oust him. However this is untrue what you need is 2/3rds of a quorate meeting. Which means that in the last meeting he would have needed just 23 votes against him ... which was just missed by 6 votes.
This is yet another reason why there can be no confidence in him as a speaker. He can't even interpret the consitution correctly.
I work in the bars in the SU and all i hear is complaints about them. It's not fair that other officers are working away and get paid the same wages as these two. Bring on the secret ballot - they might think they are safe but the fact that it is a secret ballot might throw a surprise their way
Even coming this late in the year, this motion could have quite the impact if the lads get put out:
1. Six weeks wages at £17k/yr is over £1700 after tax - a reasonable sum! Consider it retroactive application of performance-related pay :p
2. When applying for the next job, who are they going put as references? Most firms ask for your previous employer
3. As has been said before, it shows sabbs that they can't slack off and get away with it. Anyone who works in the SU will have noticed how rarely Duffy and Lilly have been in the office since next years Exec were elected!
looks like Duffy, Lilly and their cronies have been out thumbing things up and down... ahhh, it's sad that they have to do this to make themselves feel better...
calm down dear has a point. i also have heard about a number of good things that both barry and paul have done for students and they are undoubtably more approachable and accessible than any other vps that are supposed to be acting on our behalf, so to be so harsh on them is completely unjust and unfair. and the fact that it is coming so late in the year is clearly pointless, but echos the malice involved. it seems like a lot of people may simply be jealous of the popularity that these two have picked up throughout the year.
just a fairly ordinary student and i don't know that much about the internal union stuff. I do know that when i had a problem and sought help from Barry Duffy i was given it. He helped me and i got the problem with my school sorted out - so speaking as i find, he's alright with me.
Does anyone know if "ordinary" students turn up at this meeting can they vote or is it just counsellors?
unnknownmale... you failed to get a degree. you dont go to queens anymore. why are you always here?
time to move on and spend less time sitting on the gown boards whinging about the union, and go and get a life..
@ unknownmale:
I totally know where you're coming from. BUT: This stance is a clear public statement:
WE WILL NOT TOLERATE SABBS WHO DO NO WORK!
YOU CANNOT WASTE OUR MONEY ANYMORE!
It is against all sabbs who do No work all year, and get away with it.
The point of the motion is two fold:
Firstly - It will send a clear message to anyone else who is thinking of running for a Sabb post with the thought of "Sure - it'll be a doss job and easy money for a year."
This motion is about preventing future Lilly's & Duffy's from even running in the first place.
Secondly - It has given council itself a kick up the arse. Made them realise the power that they have. It's there to be used to ensure that these people do work. Council is there to hold the sabbs to account - and up until this point they haven't been. The time to act is now.
Put an end to Sabbatical Apathy as much to put an end to Council's Apathy!
In response to timing: It's a catch 22 - if it had happened earlier there would have been a mass outcry - it would have been too early. Give them a chance etc etc. It would have seemed extremely heavy handed and draconian.
It happens now and people say - what's the point, why even bother now that it's so late in the year. (I hope I answered this above).
@ laughing student: I agree with you.
The inherent problem with council is that only those with an interest group run for it:
- Unionists, CU, Societies, Law students, etc etc Those with a stake in the union. Very few people run for it for the pure sake of seeing a better union, and have the guts to stand up for it (like Pauli). She is one of the few people afraid to speak her mind because of her lack of a personal stake on council. 90% of councillors are afraid to say what they truly think for fear of repercussions, to themselves, to their societies, etc etc. Think of it this way: Most future or potential Sabbs have been on council:
Ni Chaera, Redpath, McGibbon, Downs, Kidd, Anderson, Critchlow, McKernan, (McGreevy). That's almost 10% of council right there. You can actually go through and quite easily put people in blocks of allegiance.
Council needs to be more representative of students. But few students are genuinely interested at the beginning of the year in the workings of the union (it's only when things go wrong that it's made public). We need more independants on council who see things for what they are, and have the Union's interests which should always the Students' interests, at its heart.
I think a lot more Referendums are neccessary. Decisions should be opened out to all students to make in terms of the Union's direction. The Union should listen to them - not 'act in their best interests' like a coddling mother.
The Students' Union has many holes. It would be naive of anyone not to admit to that. But what it needs most are students interested who are in what is best for other students and the students' union, putting themselves forward for council, or getting involved in other ways.
Did you know that any student can put forward a motion? You don't have to be a councillor!
So get involved.
Get rid of those who take you and your money for granted!
Put Students' Interests First!
It'll be better craic than the Mandela, and if Thursday night is anything to go by, there'll be more attending
@ Hopeful student,
Yep, everyone can go- should be a great evening's craic!
I have to agree with unknownmale's views on council and exec being like real politicians and sitting around talking, attending committee after committee, talking, talking, talking...and NOTHING being done. From the average onlooker's point of view it's unclear as to whether or not the exec or council have any power whatso ever. and even if they do, is that power even representative of the student body in terms of what they use their power to do? Take the SUTV, Gown, gaming, council speaker deabtes/discussions/whatever they should be called... would council's viewpoint be the viewpoint of the entire student body? Probably not, and I know that that's not really a fault of their own due to the nature of people being elected and if some people don't come forward for elections oupled with apathy etc etc, it really can't be helped. But, if a survey was taken on, say, the issue of SUTV, asking students in the entire student body if they would watch it or not, chances are I'd be right in thinking the majority would give off an apathetic, "Nah, probably not." In the instance of The Gown being removed from office and distribution and their general treatment by Union officials, I'd say the majority of the student body would say shrug, shake their heads and say, "Seems obvious what's going on. Union don't like what Gown writes. They should be allowed back into their office." If ANYONE on this entire earth, nevermind the student body, was asked about Redpath staying on as Speaker despite a vote of no confidence, they'd laugh and ask if the lad was feeling alright. That gaming thing? Nobody would care at all. Except for maybe the CU crew.
The council and exec are merely in place so that the "Union" can continue pretending to be a Students' Union.
It's no more a students' union than I am an Ethiopian.
With a motion of no confidence imminent I feel it justified to do the same with President Shane Brogan. I always hear of his 'great work' yet do not realise what this is. A nobody should have never got into power.
oh just to clear up I meant what's the point in getting rid of duffy and lilly now when the damage has been done. They should have never been elected in the first place but with such an apathetic student body its not a bit of wonder that such a pathetic executive was elected.
Can any student go to the meeting on May 12th, even if they are not members of council?
Aye, unknownmale, but that kind of attitude only perpetuates the SU's malaise and plays into the hands of the "wasters" - and of course that also strengthens political "wasters" in positions of real power.
The "yeah, man, but they're in it for them doock houses, innit" approach is just immature and self-defeating.
Duffy/Lilly will handily pass 1/3 of the council vote, men of the people that they are, but that doesn't mean councillors are wrong to push some principled action, no matter how late in the day.
The whole "action"/"what was acheived"/"lip service" thing is also pretty disingenuous - council is only really designed to hold the exec to account and act as a forum for debate, where concerns from the student body can be aired. What would you have the council do ideally?
The Union's very, very far from perfect, but council is stirring from its slumber, at least a bit; turnout was up in the sabbatical elections, and the new VPs seem pretty committed and clued-in; Helferty at NUS-USI has had some real wins this year in direct lobbying.
I'll have a report on the SSCC reforms mentioned above written up soon; they contain some good, worthwhile stuff that will likely have a tangible impact on courses and school decisions, if implemented. That's Brogan's work.
So everything's not always all bad.
Its just like real politics. Self-obsessed egotistical wasters doing a lot of talking but not taking much action.
Was anything actually achieved? As per usual i'm guessing the answer is no. What is the point in getting rid of Lilly and Duffy? Lip service, typical SU
Thats an awesome review of the meeting, sounds epic. Still, when huge societies vote en masse for candidates during elections over special interest politics you get the Duffys and Lillys of the world. We get the politicians we deserve and its true of sabs as well.
Where Sabbatical officers spend their money in their own free time has nothing to do with their job! Would it matter if they choose to go to Tesco or Centra instead of using the SU Shop? The Union bars cannot be treated as a charity. In any case Duffy and Lilly have I’m sure spent more of their hard earned cash in the Union than most over their time at Queen’s! On a serious note I’ve heard numerous accounts of both Paul and Barry working hard for students. To throw them out at this late stage is purely vindictive.
Bye Bye Paul, Bye Bye Barry. You have only yourself to blame.
Disappointing meeting last night, thought council could have dealt with the Union censorship once and for all.
Cant wait to pass the votes of no confidence next month!! They are going to get exactly what thy deserve, some hard working Sabbs who actually care about the Union like Shane, the VP Campaigns and VP Community have carried these two idiots all year
So where is the Gown Office moving to? Or is that not known yet because the fate of the gown still depends on meetings yet to take place?
Can i first of all commend the gown for publishing an accurate review of council, it was by far the most uproar we have seen by members probably in the whole year! It's good to see democracy at work!
I urge all councillors to come to meeting on 12 May and make your voice heard, for what could be a possible turning point in Sabbatical officers taking the SU's money for what reason, other than to spend it in the Bot!!!!!
Loading ...
Marvelous victory by Duffy and Lilly last night
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like