Questionable Spending by UCC Societies' Guild

This statement is in response to the articles that appeared in last week’s Motley Magazine. (16/02/2012)



The articles made several points concerning UCC Societies that were dangerously factually inaccurate and formed in such a way as to mislead the reader.



Let us start by saying that the Guild Officers, similar to many Societies’ Committees, devote on average 21 hours of time per week to their own portfolios, be they Finance or PR, and to being constantly available to Society members for help and advice.

The kind of work that the Guild Executive and Societies committees do affects actual changes to life in UCC. The standard and quality of our Societies can and has changed the ranking of the University at an International Level (cited in the QS World University Rankings last year).



As stated in Motley: “while conducting this [month-long] investigation into the Guild Executive, we spoke to people involved in Societies”. I would like to point out that only once during this investigation was the Guild Executive contacted for any purpose and that was at the print deadline. Had we been asked at any point during the month while the article was being published for assistance we would have been more than happy to sit down with the writers and aid them in ensuring that their articles were factually accurate.



Firstly there is a confusion concerning the rules we have in place to govern how money is spent. The articles suggest that financial decisions are made on whim, with preference given to certain Societies above others. The Guild Executive Finance Committee uses a document known as the Schedule of Allowances to govern how money is granted to Societies. All Committee Members are made aware of how this document works and Finance Officers and Auditors are given specific broken down training in the individual parts.

It is important to note that 96% of applications for funding are approved in one form or another. Grounds under which we would deny funding would be in the case of a Society asking for a large amount of money having done little else all year to justify the spending; an application contravening the Schedule or similar.



There also seems to be a level of confusion regarding the approval of Societies.

We are cited as having approved two similar Societies in the past - Sophia Society and the Philosophical Society. It should be clarified that Sophia Society, which no longer exists, was a Society devoted to the discussion of Philosophical theory, the Philosoph is a debating Society. Grounds under which we would deny a new Society would be in the case of a Society being a single issue political lobbying Society, or being already covered by an existing Society.



At this point it is important to point out that all of our decisions are open to appeal, in the first instance to Societies and then to the Academic Council for the Student Experience, which is our own governing body within the University. All decisions within the Guild Executive that individuals or Societies’ feel are unfair are invited to appeal to this Council who then have the power to overturn our decision.

On the issue of transparency: the UCC Societies Guild Executive prides itself on having the most transparent, representative, student-lead Societies Executive in the Country. In other Universities, financial decisions are made by University staff members only, with little or no student input and no accountability to the students. In UCC we have a student-run Societies Executive, this means that we better understand individual Society needs and respond accordingly, having come from individual Societies ourselves and been elected by Societies at our AGM.

In UCC, students are given every opportunity to control how best to spend their money. Committees are elected by students, they in turn elect the Guild Executive from within their own members. The Guild Executive is responsible for the financial decisions that are posted, every week, to all Societies’ members online for maximum transparency. If there are any issues with decisions that we have made then members are always encouraged to contact their Guild Rep, the Finance Officer or the President; who will be happy to sit down and go through individual issues with applications.



This year we have started two new projects to increase transparency in the decisions of the Executive. The Societies’ Senate is an event, which anyone can attend, where Society Committees have a vote on decisions. At the two Senates we have held this year people have had the opportunity to question our decisions and vote on issues with serious outcomes, such as rejoining BICS. At both of these events we had a turnout of 80 or so Societies’ reps.

In addition to the Societies’ Senate, we were happy recently (30/01/2012) to announce that we will be putting together a committee, independent of the Guild Executive, to examine our existing structures and suggest improvements. These suggestions will form a large part of the UCC Societies Strategic Plan for the next few years.



To suggest that there is a democratic deficit in Societies is bizarre given the amount of direct involvement the individual members have in decisions made. The magazine refers to the decision, by the Auditors, to make the President an optional paid position as “undemocratic”. The decision to make the option available for those going for the position of President was not one taken lightly and took many years to implement. Beginning in 2009 the Guild Executive began exploring the options with regard to the evolution of Societies. Societies voted on the issue three times between 2010 and 2011 to ensure that any issues with the optional paid Presidency could be ironed out. Each time the Societies returned results resoundingly in favour of the idea.



On the issue of what is termed “an increase in extravagant public spending”, the article does not take into account that every single instance cited were decisions that were taken before this year’s Societies Guild Executive took office. It ought to be made clear that the expenses referred to were not spent by this year’s Guild Executive and such expenses, if they were indeed spent, would not be something that would be approved by this year’s Guild Executive.



On a broader point, every year the Guild does host an annual crossover dinner for both the incoming and outgoing Guild Executives, a group of 18 – 20 people. As outlined above, the Guild Executive feels that the amount of work put in by the Officers throughout the year is considerable and that this reward can be justified, of course up to a reasonable point.



At this juncture, we should point out that this year’s Guild Executive has taken active steps to move expenditure away from exclusive events, instead transferring expenditure to things like Auditor’s Training, which has been the largest single item, and per person item, of expenditure this year. This year we held Auditor’s Training for cheaper per head and it was attended by more people. Auditor Training is a vital exercise that allows Society Auditors, and indeed other committee members who attend on behalf of their Auditor, to bond and learn. The Training encourages participation and collaboration and the dividends can be seen on campus week on week.

It is also important to acknowledge the genuine hard graft and hours of, often unrecognized, organizing and work that the Auditors and committee members do every year. It is incredibly important that Society members feel the value of their work and how much it is appreciated by the college. We do our best to reward this hard work throughout the year.



Following on from this, particularly singled out is the new digital screen. When UCC installs similar screens in the ORB, the Boole basement, Library, the Student Centre, the Main Rest, the West Wing, the Kane Building, the Western Gateway, the CEC and Brookefield these are presumably “justified”. Our screen was erected as means of creating great visibility for Societies to the wider student body. The information on our screen changes every single day while the other digital screens on campus, which Societies are not permitted to use, change perhaps four times a year at most. The new screen displays Society events and notices prominently, right outside the library, where hundreds of students pass daily.



This year’s Guild Executive has not misspent one red cent. We have, at no point, made a decision that was in any way wasteful, extravagant or for personal gain. Our accounts will be subject to the scrutiny of our members at our AGM in five weeks time and we are confident that they will stand up.



Finally, we must express our deep disappointment with the manner in which the writers at Motley conducted their “investigation”. They claimed that we were contacted for a response and that we declined. This is misleading in the extreme, in that while it is true that we were contacted, we were contacted mere hours before the piece went to print. We are not prone to making a response hastily, and without fact-checking, and so declined to comment. One must question the journalistic integrity of a magazine whose definition of an investigation involves not contacting any single person to whom the story pertains, relying solely on anecdotal evidence and one source who they refuse to name.

We regret that they feel it was appropriate to print a story with such deep and serious accusations, many errors and lacking any reliable source. We believe that the staff at Motley need to reconsider how they operate and endeavor to a higher standard of journalism.

titan18 wrote: »

Aye, guild wrote a good response to it. Also, am in societies and I've had no problems with them. They're all pretty sound this year, and last

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't think the response is a particularly strong one. It's also clear that the Guild don't really believe what they're saying. If they did genuinely believe they were in the right, why would they need to get so defensive?

Richard Cranium wrote: »

The Guild, in their response, have admitted (albeit tacitly) that they have spent outrageous sums of money on themselves in the past, yet haven't even hinted at an apology or even a little bit of humility. In fact their response essentially says that they deserved the lavish spending on themselves. This was bad enough, but it was made even worse by past and present Guild members making light of the situation on Facebook. This isn't just Journosoc whining about not getting funding for one thing or another, this is students wanting to know that their money isn't being wasted by those entrusted with it.

I'm a society committee member too and I'm disgusted at their attitude. It reflects badly on everyone on society committees (not least Finance Officers) if the regulators (ie the Societies Guild) can't even be trusted with students' capitation fees.

titan18 wrote: »

Also,the making light of it was fun, and I did it myself on it.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A few months ago Enda Kenny gave a political advisor a raise to €127,000 in the midst of widespread budget cuts and tax raises. Do you think this is a bit of fun? Because €127,000 divided by the number of Irish taxpayers is less than half €1,000 divided by the number of UCC students. On a payer-by-payer basis, these things by the Guild cost more than national things, like pay rises for friends, that receive widespread condemnation.

That the absolute figures are comparatively small does not make it any less worse.

x43r0 wrote: »

Is there much change needed? I mean, expenses are common in any large organisation for clients and in-house social events


I know some might use the term "Overly lavish" but when things like this occur so sparingly then I don't see the harm.

I'm not opposed to cutting expenses a little but not to the point where the best you can afford is to give people a can of fanta and a sausage roll and tell them they're having fun.

Cian92 wrote: »

Just reading that article there. "While the Clubs Executive declined to make their accounts available to us" - The article then brushes over this.

I really don't think you should be in receipt of public funding if you don't publish your accounts for all to see.

I'd love to see a proper set of accounts for both Clubs & Societies not the half figures published in the Express.