Our image with outside

[Chris]

I have spent my afternoon with Connie and Jazz attempting to find a venue for the Balaka reception before LPH. Currently the stance of the Psychology department is that the UDS will not host a reception anywhere within its building again. The school of history, while more welcoming do have issues with past behaviour of the society.

I know much work has been done over the year that I have been here to attempt to deal with the poor image we have to many, indeed it came up at the AGM. But it is at this point that I personally would like to say that when we have got to the stage where current members of the society suffer for the sins of the parents. Moreso that we still have issues with damage to buildings that we book, I for one will not stand for it and can assure people that I will look into taking whatever sanctions against people are necessary.

[David Bean]

What's all this about damage to buildings?

By the way, the School of History didn't say anything about the behaviour of UDS members when Rob and I booked the Undercroft for the reception before the Solatium, and I don't recall any problems at that event. What's supposed to have changed their end?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Lid]

Well, as I was in the meeting, it wasn't in camera so I guess I'll clarify:

A "certain member" (I don't actually know, not covering here) smashed some windows in LPH, accidentally or otherwise, I'm not able to comment. He's now paying for them out of his own pocket.



[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires

[Cain]

I was under the impression that your corporate image had been completely revamped last year, in which case there should be no problem.

As for paying for the sins of the fathers... you'll just have to do some grovelling and atone for the crimes of the UDS committed in a previous life.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[OhhMy]

David and I had no problems when we booked the undercroft and all went fine untill the cleanup team droped a bottle of whisky and I scrubed the floor clean. No one noticed. We had to give them some pritty strong assurances that nothing would go wrong. They are lovely but I was told when I handed the key back in that the Professors inspected the room just to make sure that David or I hadn't burned it down.

The story of the broken window in the Male toilet in LPH will have travelled round the university and it is often the reputation of the UDS among the departments that is a barrier to us. No crimes have been commited thus far in the Undercroft and I am sure that none will be commited.

Just a quick suggestion I suggest that there is someone from the BoT on the gate out side the undercroft to turn away any (already) drunk Debators. If we make this work again then we may get the room on a more pernament basis.

GOOD LUCK ON SUNDAY
MMM Curry

[toff-toff]

Hi guys,

I just wanted to mention a few things on this subject. It is one that greatly concerns me, and may I assure the Society that I am doing all I can to improve the Society's image within the university.

Firstly however, I would like to point out that the issue of academic schools cutting down or refusing to host our events is not something restricted to the UDS. The Mediaeval history department are now the only university school to allow non-associated groups and societies use their facilities. I know the trouble that other societies have had reccently in finding rooms for their functions, so this would appear to be a university-wide cut down on societies using rooms, not simply backlash against the debates society.

However, our use of the mediaeval history department facilities this Sunday are subject to the struct condition that we treat them well and leave them exactly how we found them. If we want to use the Undercroft again for any UDS event, it is imperative that we look after them.

Whilst the UDS's reputation is recovering, there is still much work to be done, and I would welcome any sugestions that people have to this end.

Thanks, see you all on Sunday!

- Rachael

[feynman]

I went and managed to book the undercroft after about half an hour of listening to the secrataries in medieval history tell me about why the debating society wasn't allowed in any of the university building. They all knew about the psychology building, and why St Mary's wouldn't take us. Word gets around people, and that's why we had such a hard time getting that room.

It is true that it is not simply the UDS that is being targeted but lets face it,
Our predecessors messed things up BIG time for us and now we're suffering. I think we can all agree that this is the case. Our corporate image obviously WASN't completely revamped last year. We're working hard currently to assure the university buildings that we are a changed society.

We have the Undercroft as a one-off, and with no food allowed. Just wine. We need to prove that the debating society has a little more etiquette than it has demonstrated in the past.

[Al]

When exactly was the damage done to LPH? When were people drunkenly obnoxious in debates? I am guessing that the people responsible are still trooping along to deabtes. If that is the case, then it seems both a little harsh and dishonest to lay all the blame for the UDS's current image problems on "predecessors". The only way you'll improve your image with "outside" is - as people have said - by improving it on the "inside". I believe that the President has the right to ban people from attending debates. Make an example of people.

[Laura]

Quoting feynman from 13:32, 22nd Apr 2006
Our predecessors messed things up BIG time for us and now we're suffering. I think we can all agree that this is the case. Our corporate image obviously WASN't completely revamped last year. We're working hard currently to assure the university buildings that we are a changed society.

I find that a little offensive- especially as the Principal described my year as president as being easily the best behaved in years. A lot of the things that happened with the board of ten 2005-6 are things that layed the foundations for this board to be able to move forward. When we talk about misbehaviour you need to remember that it was not my board or the board before that who made it impossible for the use of these facilities to go ahead- and also that it was a Balaka hospitality committee's actions that resulted in industrial cleaning services being brought in by psychology.

Last year was a good year as far as university trust building was concerned until the actions of a few nobbers at the solatium- please do not attempt to blame it on the last board or criticise the corporate image we set the ball rolling with. If you only knew how much we had progressed in the last four years.

[hr]

"When I came back to Dublin, I was courtmartialled in my absence and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they could shoot me in my absence."

[OhhMy]

Yes we did try very hard and achieved the results. David, and my self pleaded to get the Undercroft. Me managed and because we didnt' screw up we can have it again. But just being good once isn't good enough. We have to do it again and again. So the fact that we are allowed back is a good sign. If we keep up the good behaviour then things will improve.

But somthing that Laura and the rest of the Board of Ten realised is that regaining a positive reputation takes a lot longer than losing one. Laura is to be commended for her hard work in making the society a LOT more respectable. But the work continues.

On an aside, can the convenor ban members from attending debates?

[Steveo]

I don't think so, not without going to (possibly) the deiciplinary subcomittee of the SSC.

Anyone know more than me, I'm all representation and very little services?

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Al]

Perhaps "ban" was the wrong word to use. However, the standing orders state "All members of the Students' Association, and Life and Honorary Members and Officers of the Society, will be Members of the House unless subject to disciplinary action by the President or the Student Services Council." That suggests the President has the power to discipline members independently of any action taken by the SSC.

[Tweedle-Dum]

I'm pretty sure the convenor cannot ban members, though they can remove anyone they like from the house at any time once the house has been brought to order.

[hr]

Tetragrammaton is a four letter word.

[Cain]

Quoting feynman from 13:32, 22nd Apr 2006

Our predecessors messed things up BIG time for us and now we're suffering.

Quoting Laura from 15:12, 22nd Apr 2006
II find that a little offensive - When we talk about misbehaviour you need to remember that it was not my board or the board before that who made it impossible for the use of these facilities to go ahead- and also that it was a Balaka hospitality committee's actions that resulted in industrial cleaning services being brought in by psychology.

Without wanting to put words in their mouth, I believe that by predecessors, Feynman is referring to more than just the immediate generation preceeding the current incarnation of the board.

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[exnihilo]

The Convenor cannot remove a person's membership, but attendance at debates is contingent on the Convenor's good will. She can absolutely ban someone from attending a meeting of the House, it's happened many times in the past and it assuredly does not need the SSC to OK it.

Though, I would argue that anyone so banned had the right to appeal to the SSC to overturn it.