Thursday, May 04, 2006

Officer fails to seek re-election

It has emeregd that Cultural Affairs officer, Mark Hill was to seek re-election for the post in the elections to happen on May 11th.

He did however miss the closing date by a mere 5 minutes. This gives his would be running mate Natalie Simpson a clear run against RON (Re-open Nominations).

In speaking to The Gown Mark Hill confirmed that it was his intention to seek re-election but did deliver his nomination form "in 5 minutes late" and it therefore was not accepted.

He explained that he was coming from a class, finishing at 12 noon and missed the deadline arriving at 5 minutes past. Mr Hill accepted that it was his own fault but suggested that he may run a campaign asking voters to vote for RON (Re-open Nominations).

RON (or Re-open Nominations) is on the ballot paper to allow voters to vote for exactly that. Whilst people may vote for RON many will wish to see a candidate in the post. It will therefore be very likely that Natalie Simpson will take up the position unopposed. This has happened on a number of previous occassions in recent years, indicating a lack of interest in Union politics. Earlier this year candidate David Smyth was co-opted onto the Executive as the Mature Students' officer being the only person, with a pulse, to submit a nomination form.

Mr Hill suggested that there was some comfort for him in the fact that the position of Cultural Affairs did not hold voting rights on the Executive Committee, a rule which he sought to change during his term. He has however on this blog offered his help to Ms Simpson if she is successful in forfilling the role.

It is believed that another candidate from the DUA was on hand to contest this election, but did not stand as Mark Hill insisted on his intentions to seek re-election.

When a DUA representive was asked if this was mistake on their behalf they responded saying that it was up to Mark Hill to get his nomination form in on time.

The elections for the non-sabbactical posts will take place on Thursday 11th May and the winners will complete the 'new' Executive Committee due to take up their posts in July. For more info see the SU website.


Anonymous David Cather said...

It's a pity Mark won't be able to retain his post, especially considering his hard work this year. I think, however, that it's unlikely that time will be wasted on a RON campaign which would in all likelihood fail anyway*. Especially as the post is without voting rights and is one of the less significant positions up for election.

* RON has never won an election...ever. Admirably though he always flys the flag and always has his nomination in on time.

5/04/2006 11:14 pm  
Blogger David said...

A similar fate once befell myself so I do empathise with Mark (not much mind you as he beat me in the last election for the post).

I would like to to take this opportunity to wish Ms Simpson well in what would appear to be her new position.

Any word on the candidates for the other positions?

5/04/2006 11:29 pm  
Anonymous Joe Mangel said...

It was unfortunate that this had to happen to Mark, but the rules are the same for everybody. Who was the other DUA candidate that was poised to run for the position now inevitably filled by Ms Simpson? I look forward to her undertaking her role with an unbias and neutral outlook.

5/05/2006 3:14 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure Student Council will greatly miss Mr. Hill's contribution.

Or at least they would have had he ever bothered to turn up.

5/05/2006 3:02 pm  
Anonymous Mark said...

Well Anon - I think you'll find that I was only physically able to attend one Student Council meeting and that my apologies were sent to all others. Unfortately the night that was set for Student council throughout the year remained the same despite me asking for council to be held on alternative nights each month to accomodate more councillors. Im not alone in having a life outside of the Students Union and from August to May I have a committment which takes precidence over Council meetings. It did however not stop me fulfilling my role as Cultural Affairs Officer for 05/06 and if you have any direct complaints about my term in the position I'd be happy to hear them. It's unfortunate that I will not be running again for the same role which I have thoroughly enjoyed this year and wished to build on but I wish Natalie all the best in the position if she is duly elected and if she requires any advice or help from my tenure I'd be happy to give it :)

This was, as highlighted to the Gown, my own mistake and I should have been better organised but I'm sure Im not alone in getting a little bit 'all over the place' at this time of year. With 4 exams to sit in the next couple of weeks as well as coursework to be handed in on the Wednesday morning when noms closed and a 5000 word piece to be handed in on monday - my mind was a little distracted from the task in hand - Alas, im no longer going to be on exec next year but it was fun till this point and may I wish good luck to all candidates running for the non-sabbitical posts (although I am particularly jealous now that I'll be missing out on the new offices!)

5/05/2006 6:03 pm  
Anonymous SCrAtchy said...

Hey Mr. Texan cowboy....define hard work! What has this critter done for anyone other than exhibit himself as a hate-filled clampit? He's considering running a RON unbelievably stupid is that? Amazing who those lickspittles at the Gown give blog space to a complete an utter non entity! Ain't there any news out there boys?

5/06/2006 12:13 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think its worth pointing out that Jonny Stevenson's campaign literature in 2005 focused on his frustration with what he saw as the laziness of the executive committee.

The reasoning for such a view?

Mr. Stevenson felt that executive officers who didn't turn up to council meetings were lazy, unfit for the job and should be "kicked out". Very ironic in the circumstances!

By the way, if a RON campaign was fought and won, what a waste of resources would be involved for the Union as another election would be necessary.


5/06/2006 2:11 am  
Blogger David said...

Scratchy am I the one our refering to as Texan cowboy? If so, why are you asking me to define hard work. I apart from clearly knowing little about it being a student, didnt bring it up on this blog.

5/06/2006 8:53 am  
Anonymous SCrAtchy said...

David...'considering his hardwork'...I invite you to inform the world.

5/06/2006 1:55 pm  
Blogger David said...

Scratchy, different David I am not Mr Cather

5/06/2006 6:15 pm  
Blogger ripvanwinkle said...

Gregarious philanthropists the lot of you! Stifle your quagmire of discontent and rejoice at the prospect of an imminent Take That reunion tour!

5/08/2006 1:49 pm  
Anonymous David Cather said...

Gregarious philanthropists the lot of you! Stifle your quagmire of discontent and rejoice at the prospect of an imminent Take That reunion tour!

They're not coming here are they! I think I'd prefer a visit from the Pope, Mary McAllesse and the Income Tax man on the same day.

5/08/2006 1:58 pm  
Blogger ripvanwinkle said...

Yes, it's true. Sunday 14th May Take That come to Belfast to play the Odyssey. It's sold-out but I'm sure you could get tickets on ebay or the like...don't miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the greatest band the UK ever produced live and in person in Belfast!!!!!

How Deep is Your Love?

5/08/2006 2:03 pm  
Anonymous David Cather said...

By the way, if a RON campaign was fought and won, what a waste of resources would be involved for the Union as another election would be necessary.


As was implied in my last post there isn't going to be any RON campaign. Apart from the futility of such an exercise it's questionable whether actively campaigning for RON is constitutional.

5/08/2006 4:13 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS wasn't the point you made about a waste of resources similar to the one you and your friend gaskin campaigned against over the co-option of the matures students officer?

5/09/2006 10:42 am  
Blogger Chris Gaskin said...

No, myself and paddy supported the constitution.

Others chose to defy it

5/10/2006 1:20 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A similar arguement I suppose but the devil is in the detail. Every place on the executive is supposed to go to a cross campus ballot. There is a difference between wanting to ensure that the rules are probably adhered to for each sabbathical position and opposing active attempts to force an unnecessary election when there is nothing wrong with the way the first one has been convened.

Mr. Cather

Out of interest, why do you think campaigning for RON is unconsititutional?


5/10/2006 10:03 am  
Anonymous David Cather said...

I was told a year or two ago that an active RON campaign wasn't allowed. (i.e. postering for RON and standing on polling stations canvassing for him.)

To be honest I've never looked it up myself and I couldn't tell you which part of the constitution you would have to look. I'll dig a bit deeper when I have the time and find out. I suppose theres always a risk with seecond hand opinions, also the opinion could be based on the constitution pre Mary Durkan's constitutional review.

5/10/2006 10:50 am  
Blogger David said...

I was of the understanding that Speaker of council was an executive position that did not have to go to a cross campus vote. Am I incorrect in this understanding

5/10/2006 5:58 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


From the constitution

1.1 The Executive Committee shall be composed of students who hold the following posts:


a) President
(b) Deputy President
c) Vice President Clubs and Services
(d) Vice President Education
(e) Vice President Welfare

The Sabbatical Officer protocol is attached as Appendix 1.


(a) International Students’ Officer
(b) Student Community Action Officer
(c) Women’s Officer
(d) Postgraduate Students’ Officer

The Non-Sabbatical Officer Protocol is attached as Appendix 2.


(a) The Speaker
(b) The Editor of PTQ
(c) The Deputy Editor of the Union Newspaper
(d) The Mature Students Officer
(e) The Cultural Affairs Officer


1.6 For elections to the Executive Committee where there are any nominations, ballot papers shall include as an option the statement ‘re-open nominations’.

This applies to all members of the executive except the Speaker of the council, the Rag adminstrator, the deputy editor of the Union newspaper and the editor of PTQ. This positions have their manner of election defined in the constitution which states that council elects the first 3 while the PTQ editor should be elected by the RAG committee


5/10/2006 10:10 pm  
Anonymous pso said...

So I'm a double executive officer, cool.

5/10/2006 10:12 pm  
Blogger David said...

Yeah PS thats what my understanding was but I was refering to the suggestion in a previous post that all executive positions had to go to cross campus ballot. Forgot what else council elected

5/11/2006 1:10 am  
Blogger ripvanwinkle said...

So who do you guys think will win the Champions League final then? Arsenal or Barcelona? My money's on the latter.

5/12/2006 11:09 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm impressed with your site, very nice graphics!

5/18/2006 9:04 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really amazing! Useful information. All the best.

5/18/2006 9:09 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a great site, how do you build such a cool site, its excellent.

5/18/2006 9:13 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home