PSU motions to reduce accountability

Teslacuted · 10-09-2014 12:03am #1

In case you missed the email:

HACH-TEE-TEE-PEE-SEMICOLON-FORWARDSLASH-FORWARDSLASH skynet.ie/~teslacut/psu/ULPSU%20AGM%20Agenda%20%2817-09-2014%29.pdf

No rationale for any of these motions has been presented, and by-golly do they need some explaining.

Chimaera · 10-09-2014 1:26am

When was this issued?

DaveR1 · 10-09-2014 9:26am

E-Mailed at 11 pm last night to all postgrads.

Why are references to the ULSU and C&S been removed from the constitution?

Perpetual Student · 10-09-2014 9:44am

There are many many issues with these proposed changes.....ranging from the ULREG alternate (since when did this position ever exist?) to the complete removal of any accountability of the PSU to anyone and the fact the PSU now looks like it wants to be a little island all of its own with no links to anybody. The addition of final year UG voting rights and the odd change in the number of students required to call a referendum?! Hmmmm.

I'd like to know who has actually come up with these proposed changes? I wonder were these individuals, all just one person or have they been discussed with Council and Executive?

Perpetual Student · 10-09-2014 10:00am

My browser isn't allowing me to edit posts >:( but another question: does anyone know what email list this has gone out to (it is not on the email itself)? I would assume postgrads....but which ones? The president has been doing this since around the meeting in July when he changed the format of the emails, he also removed the information regards who the mails are going to as would always have been done: he is now sending them as 'bcc' rather than in the 'to' box. Why has this happened? More removal of transparency in the communications? Who else is being copied in on the emails?

Chimaera · 10-09-2014 1:39pm

My understanding is that the president has largely been paddling his own canoe, ignoring any recommendations or protest from exec or the membership. It appears he'd like the president's role to be executive rather than managerial.

If the email only went out at 23:00 yesterday, then the meeting cannot go ahead next Wednesday since 10 working days' notice has not been given as per Schedule III of the constitution.

Perpetual Student · 10-09-2014 4:04pm

Chimaera wrote: »

My understanding is that the president has largely been paddling his own canoe, ignoring any recommendations or protest from exec or the membership. It appears he'd like the president's role to be executive rather than managerial.

If the email only went out at 23:00 yesterday, then the meeting cannot go ahead next Wednesday since 10 working days' notice has not been given as per Schedule III of the constitution.

Absolutely Chimaera. I believe the meeting held in July very clearly highlighted this leadership approach. His latest email sent out at 1547 today blames last year's governance for the allocation of funds to C & S - he may want to check his facts before his puts this made-up version of events out to the PG community. Similarly, the infographic on the current website also needs to be based on factual evidence (which he has been provided with).

He's using the bully/scaremongering approach again, similar to his efforts to bringing in a completely new constitution in July when no-one was around. I'm sure that in response to a late notice of the meeting, he will use the same excuse as previously, that a little sign was put up either in the common room or perhaps just somewhere around campus...sure that's enough notice for the PG community isn't it? It would just be common sense to use the medium most PGs would use around this time?

freyners · 10-09-2014 4:42pm

He certainly seems to have an issue with C&S

reunion · 10-09-2014 4:43pm

Perpetual Student wrote: »

Absolutely Chimaera. I believe the meeting held in July very clearly highlighted this leadership approach. His latest email sent out at 1547 today blames last year's governance for the allocation of funds to C & S - he may want to check his facts before his puts this made-up version of events out to the PG community. Similarly, the infographic on the current website also needs to be based on factual evidence (which he has been provided with).

He's using the bully/scaremongering approach again, similar to his efforts to bringing in a completely new constitution in July when no-one was around. I'm sure that in response to a late notice of the meeting, he will use the same excuse as previously, that a little sign was put up either in the common room or perhaps just somewhere around campus...sure that's enough notice for the PG community isn't it? It would just be common sense to use the medium most PGs would use around this time?

The removal of C&S seems like a vandetta and not benefitting students really. No reasons listed as to WHY it's important to suddenly cut what is the best social outlet for people coming to this college.

Actually, I heard (rumour maybe) that the college wouldn't pay capitation to ULSU at one point, until it guaranteed to pay 2/3rd to CS. I believe (if this is true and if these stupid motions go ahead and pass), the PSU will no longer receive funding from UL (capitation) and this will go straight to the SU. The PSU will then cease to exist (as no funding = no PSU).

As a post-graduate I am outraged at these poorly thought out proposals.

Chimaera · 10-09-2014 4:49pm

My understanding was that UL were unwilling to go against the HEA's recommendation that 2/3 of capitation is set aside for C&S funding.

Noonan's stated reasoning for removing funding to C&S is that it frees up money for other stuff in the PSU, welfare is something he's harped on about a lot. Still not justifiable since it goes against the HEA recommendations.

YFlyer · 10-09-2014 5:20pm

Is the PSU outside C&S since the PSU president receives a salary?

Is the SU part of C&S?

YFlyer · 10-09-2014 5:27pm

Perpetual Student wrote: »

My browser isn't allowing me to edit posts >:( but another question: does anyone know what email list this has gone out to (it is not on the email itself)? I would assume postgrads....but which ones? The president has been doing this since around the meeting in July when he changed the format of the emails, he also removed the information regards who the mails are going to as would always have been done: he is now sending them as 'bcc' rather than in the 'to' box. Why has this happened? More removal of transparency in the communications? Who else is being copied in on the emails?

Research post grads for sure.

YFlyer · 10-09-2014 5:34pm

Chimaera wrote: »

If the email only went out at 23:00 yesterday, then the meeting cannot go ahead next Wednesday since 10 working days' notice has not been given as per Schedule III of the constitution.

Just notice that an email did go out on the 1st September:

Hi All,

The ULPSU AGM (Annual General Meeting) is scheduled to take place on:

Wednesday 17th September 2014 at 6:15pm.
Location: PSU common room.

Further details and agenda to follow shortly.
All members are most welcome to attend.
Light refreshments will be provided.

Best regards,

S e a m u s N o o n a n.

Teslacuted · 10-09-2014 8:42pm

He needs to go.

To borrow a phrase:

When – if not now? Who – if not us?

Evergreen23 · 10-09-2014 11:04pm

Perpetual Student wrote: »

Absolutely Chimaera. I believe the meeting held in July very clearly highlighted this leadership approach. His latest email sent out at 1547 today blames last year's governance for the allocation of funds to C & S - he may want to check his facts before his puts this made-up version of events out to the PG community. Similarly, the infographic on the current website also needs to be based on factual evidence (which he has been provided with).

He's using the bully/scaremongering approach again, similar to his efforts to bringing in a completely new constitution in July when no-one was around. I'm sure that in response to a late notice of the meeting, he will use the same excuse as previously, that a little sign was put up either in the common room or perhaps just somewhere around campus...sure that's enough notice for the PG community isn't it? It would just be common sense to use the medium most PGs would use around this time?

I don't think it was as bad as the complete lack of communication/engagement with post graduate students throughout the previous year. This was particularly evident at the election where the then President and Executive committee effectively didn't bother to let anyone know there was an election taken place, it wasn't even up on Facebook that week and there wasn't a PSU website to display it. There was only a email sent out, most students didn't know there was an election. Also regarding communication, the President only managed to get up a sub standard website a year after she was elected which was part of her manifesto. Seamus rightly took it down as it was rubbish.

reunion · 11-09-2014 9:22am

Evergreen23 wrote: »

I don't think it was as bad as the complete lack of communication/engagement with post graduate students throughout the previous year. This was particularly evident at the election where the then President and Executive committee effectively didn't bother to let anyone know there was an election taken place, it wasn't even up on Facebook that week and there wasn't a PSU website to display it. There was only a email sent out, most students didn't know there was an election. Also regarding communication, the President only managed to get up a sub standard website a year after she was elected which was part of her manifesto. Seamus rightly took it down as it was rubbish.

I have zero complaints about the last president (and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that), I have many about the current.

A quick search of boards UL forum (for PSU), you find this thread and his failed EGM in July is 37 out of 118 results (31.35%) with most of it negative. Ignoring this year's PSU campaigning on boards, there is 43 out of 118 results (36.4%) about every other PSU president, with most of it positive.

I struggle to think of a benefit or reason to keep the current president with such a negative start and continued negative engagement.

PROGRAM_IX · 11-09-2014 12:35pm

This wouldn't be the first time a PSU president has had issues with C&S. All it does is make the office seem distrustful.

Evergreen23 · 11-09-2014 2:47pm

reunion wrote: »

I have zero complaints about the last president (and the one before that and the one before that and the one before that), I have many about the current.

A quick search of boards UL forum (for PSU), you find this thread and his failed EGM in July is 37 out of 118 results (31.35%) with most of it negative. Ignoring this year's PSU campaigning on boards, there is 43 out of 118 results (36.4%) about every other PSU president, with most of it positive.

I struggle to think of a benefit or reason to keep the current president with such a negative start and continued negative engagement.

You may not have had zero complaints about the last President but others certainly do. The issues that I raised are valid and you appear to ignore these.

Seamus may have mad some errors but he isn't very long in the position and I would say he has already put in more work than his predecessor did within her whole term. There has been for the past year a failure of the president and the executive to engage the PSU beyond the traditional cartel. A lot of post graduates don't even realise that there is a PSU and at least now Seamus is alerting people to its very existence.

Chimaera · 11-09-2014 4:40pm

All we've seen publicly of Seamus in his first few months is an attempt to dismantle the executive structure of the union. Regardless of any critcism of previous presidents, this isn't on at all. There are a lot of checks and balances in the executive structure designed to prevent an individual office holder having too much power and he's trying to remove them.

Regarding C&S funding, the HEA have a recommendation in place that 2/3 of student capitation awarded to students' unions be ringfenced for clubs and societies. UL have always honoured this recommendation to the extent that they were threatening to withold capitation from ULSU a few years ago when they were considering a change to the funding split to put more money into the main union pot.

reunion · 11-09-2014 5:10pm

Evergreen23 wrote: »

You may not have had zero complaints about the last President but others certainly do. The issues that I raised are valid and you appear to ignore these.

I never said there weren't any complaints about the previous president, I said I personally had none. I got facebook and twitter updates so I would disagree with you about lack of communication and I would also note that engagement in the PSU is always low or poor. I would also say the website is just a personal opinion as I think the current one needs replacing ASAP as it's soo bad and the previous one was alright. The sheer volume of people against Seamus currently, though great to see people in engaged, should show at how poorly he has communicated his intentions and reasons OR how poor a job he has done.

Evergreen23 wrote: »

Seamus may have mad some errors but he isn't very long in the position and I would say he has already put in more work than his predecessor did within her whole term. There has been for the past year a failure of the president and the executive to engage the PSU beyond the traditional cartel. A lot of post graduates don't even realise that there is a PSU and at least now Seamus is alerting people to its very existence.

He has made a lot of errors, you could understand making the errors in July early in his term, but now that we are into September, the same errors are unacceptable. Putting in work for stupidity and working sake doesn't count for anything - if he had set up review committees of the constitution, invited feedback from members and published his intentions (and the feedback), he would have a mandate from students (if emailed out the results to students and said that that was his intentions). This could be done in a year, towards the end of his term around March 2015. Certainly not month 1 in his term or month 1 for new post-grads.

I would guess most post-grad degrees are of 1/1.5 year duration, you would have to alert the new students to the existence of the PSU anyway. If you had conducted the survey last February and then again this February and compared the results, I might believe your base-less and clearly biased opinion.

I am currently unaware of anything positive Seamus has done, except propose motions to reduce accountability and to divert funding from C&S (which is recommended by the HEA and, if you polled post-grads, more have heard of (and engaged with) C&S than the PSU).

Popoutman · 12-09-2014 2:21am

Time for him to go - I don't want to be represented by someone with such a lack of understanding of how things actually work in the college - and this lack of knowledge can only mean poorer support for postgrads.

Noonan is someone that appears to have a rather tenuous grip on reality based on his plans. Definitely time for him to go before he does any more damage that would take a long time to repair. He's definitely not to be trusted with the position any longer, as he has completely betrayed the trust.

Ginge Young · 13-09-2014 1:27pm

I'll probably make a more decent contribution to this next week but just want to make some things clear.

1) No changes that have occurred in the PSU over the duration of the summer were discussed at any level with the executive or council.

2) Several meetings organised during the summer in an attempt to hold the President to account were cancelled by the President the night before each meeting was due to be held (executive and council) with them being deemed unconstitutional. The members of the executive and council present at both meetings (almost a full house if I remember) pushed ahead with the meetings anyway as they were not unconstitutional.

3) As VP/Treasurer of the Union I have been blocked from commenting on the official PSU Facebook page. This should give an idea of what we are dealing with.

4) I share the same concern as others with the motions being put forward by the President, with no input from his council or executive. Some of the motions are such large issues I find it very interesting that they are being pushed through, with little to no discussion time for members (I doubt there will be that much time in the meeting) - especially considering no other elected representatives were consulted.

Evergreen23 · 15-09-2014 5:56pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

I'll probably make a more decent contribution to this next week but just want to make some things clear.

1) No changes that have occurred in the PSU over the duration of the summer were discussed at any level with the executive or council.

2) Several meetings organised during the summer in an attempt to hold the President to account were cancelled by the President the night before each meeting was due to be held (executive and council) with them being deemed unconstitutional. The members of the executive and council present at both meetings (almost a full house if I remember) pushed ahead with the meetings anyway as they were not unconstitutional.

3) As VP/Treasurer of the Union I have been blocked from commenting on the official PSU Facebook page. This should give an idea of what we are dealing with.

4) I share the same concern as others with the motions being put forward by the President, with no input from his council or executive. Some of the motions are such large issues I find it very interesting that they are being pushed through, with little to no discussion time for members (I doubt there will be that much time in the meeting) - especially considering no other elected representatives were consulted.

These issues are valid and censorship is a blatant undemocratic action which should be addressed. Do ye not have the powers to act on this?

I do feel that the PSU as an organisation has failed to engage with Post Graduate Student's. At best its a free coffee and tea room but you don't need a President and an executive committee for this. The whole website fiasco is one of many examples of how the organisation has failed to deliver basic services over the last number of years.

reunion · 16-09-2014 9:34am

Evergreen23 wrote: »

These issues are valid and censorship is a blatant undemocratic action which should be addressed. Do ye not have the powers to act on this?

I do feel that the PSU as an organisation has failed to engage with Post Graduate Student's. At best its a free coffee and tea room but you don't need a President and an executive committee for this. The whole website fiasco is one of many examples of how the organisation has failed to deliver basic services over the last number of years.

Depends on your definition of engagement with the PSU. If you mean actually go into the PSU building or taking to the PSU president, then it's extremely low (near zero of the post-graduates). As the PSU gives money to C&S, it's part of the service it provides so using C&S would be a service provided.

Seamus Noonan wrote:

Clubs and Societies funding
Our union provides €100,000 (2/3 of our budget) of funding to the clubs and societies of UL. We have the chance to change this if the motions B-I are successfully passed at our AGM (Wed 17th Sept).

The purpose of the motions is to remove the stipulation that we must supply 2/3 of our money to the clubs and societies.

If the motions are passed successfully at our AGM, we will then be able to negotiate a more appropriate level of funding that we can provide to the clubs and societies.

If the motions don’t pass we will have to transfer approximately €100,000 to the Clubs and Societies, with the first payment being made in November 2014.

If anyone's seen the biased email Seamus sent out it's actually disgraceful (see above). He has intentionally tried to mislead students. There won't be an increase in the operating budget and there may be an increase in the financial aid bursary.

You can't just remove an item and then say ah we'll deal with it later. It must be dealt with immediately (it's 2/3rd of the budget!). How much does Seamus think is appropriate? What will happen the 2/3rd now? where does it go?

How much was the financial aid bursary was used last year? How many people applied? what are the conditions for it (it's not on the website)?

Perpetual Student · 16-09-2014 11:23am

Evergreen23 wrote: »

These issues are valid and censorship is a blatant undemocratic action which should be addressed. Do ye not have the powers to act on this?

I do feel that the PSU as an organisation has failed to engage with Post Graduate Student's. At best its a free coffee and tea room but you don't need a President and an executive committee for this. The whole website fiasco is one of many examples of how the organisation has failed to deliver basic services over the last number of years.

The website 'fiasco' you refer to should really be the disaster that has been in place since Seamus took charge. As Ginge Young has pointed out, none of these events occurred with any consultation with either the council or Executive. Seamus doesn't seem to understand the underlying concepts of democracy. He took upon himself to change the website to what could at best be described as unhelpful, most realistically be described as disgraceful, lacking useful information and (eventually) providing inaccurate information. Evergreen if you could be so kind as to point out how you think the current website is an improvement on the last one? I'd really love to hear your opinion on this.

reunion wrote: »

Depends on your definition of engagement with the PSU. If you mean actually go into the PSU building or taking to the PSU president, then it's extremely low (near zero of the post-graduates). As the PSU gives money to C&S, it's part of the service it provides so using C&S would be a service provided.

If anyone's seen the biased email Seamus sent out it's actually disgraceful (see above). He has intentionally tried to mislead students. There won't be an increase in the operating budget and there may be an increase in the financial aid bursary.

You can't just remove an item and then say ah we'll deal with it later. It must be dealt with immediately (it's 2/3rd of the budget!). How much does Seamus think is appropriate? What will happen the 2/3rd now? where does it go?

I completely agree with reunion here. The information emailed out by Seamus is a disgrace as he has no idea if that money can be allocated in full to things such as the hardship fund and childcare bursaries. His diagram is completely made up as that is not how university funding works, you can't just pick and choose where funds go. Any university staff member will tell you that budgets are prepared months in advance, you can't just decide, 'Actually this is inconvenient...let's just change that'.

Again his mode of leadership (dictatorship) does not allow for the representation of the other side of the story and the actual facts, as you get a rap on the knuckles for replying all to all the other students, can't post directly on the Facebook page (very moderated) and must provide your details on the website. Add to that, Seamus' apparent inability to reply to emails querying points of information. At the moment, it is his way or no way.

He's had three months to get himself sorted. While July could be considered a learning curve, this is now September and the complete abuse of his position is visible for many to see. For three months he has lied, tried to weasel his way out of any problem, lied and backtracked some more, blamed previous presidents for problems, censored information and completely ignored the democratic process. I'm all for giving people chances but it really is time for him to go.

TrionaBump · 16-09-2014 11:32am

Hi, I previously posted this on the ulwolves discussion post but I have also posted it here as there seems to be a little more discussion going on.
If I have interrupted anything incorrectly then please correct me

Hi,

I was just reading everything that was sent out in the email by Paul last Friday and also what David and Declan have said in their posts and I agree with them 100%. While there are alot of Post Grads studying in UL, not as many are members as they could be, and that could be down to a lack of knowledge about the availability of them for students who are not undergraduate members, but that is something that the PSU could be promoting as a means of creating friendships and eliminating a barrier of loneliness that can arise when you come to a new place to do your Post Grad.

I know from my involvement with the International Society, there are large numbers of PG's that get involved, however that is down to them being made aware of the option to do so via the Office and Presentations during their orientations. However I feel that is slightly off topic for this tread.

I was reading the agenda that Mr. Noonan has supplied on the UL PSU site (not allowed attach a link as I'm a new user!( and I may be wrong/confused (I never fully sure of myself reading constitutions). But does he need to consult C&S about this proposed changes as in the current constitution C&S are down as having a rather important role with accounts, having someone on exec and being linked with the MoU? If my understanding is correct, and if I'm wrong, please do correct me - then does Seamus not have to attend a C&S meeting first to outline his changes and his reasoning for doing so before he can bring them to his AGM.

And if he doesn't need to do this, is it possible to request him to attend a C&S meeting to speak with all of those in attendance (many of whom are actually Post Grad members) and outline his rational?

I am just concerned that there is a lack of public knowledge about these proposed changes within the Post Grad groups as outlined by David and Declan, two active C&S heads who have not been either approached or directly contacted about these changes within their union? I am also slightly worried that there is so little discussion on this page about such a chunk of funding possibly being removed, and when budgets are getting tighter each year with the increasing number of C&S being created and approved, I feel that having a discussion forum, during council would be hugely beneficial however I do not know how realistic an option it may be.

I for one would like to hear Seamus explain how he has gathered his information on Post Graduate involvement and justify the removal of the funding in an open and public environment.

reunion · 16-09-2014 11:46am

Perpetual Student wrote: »

I'm all for giving people chances but it really is time for him to go.

If the motions at the AGM are rejected, he has to step down or be removed, he has dealt with 2 general meetings extremely poorly and ignored requests for information. There was significant backlash in July and the motions proposed with little explanation or reasoning (I have no idea who they are proposed by, was it the PSU president? The PSU executive? Members?)

Of course, if they are accepted, that's a different story but still creates more questions that won't be resolved without another general meeting and/or yearly agreements which waste time and the PSU's limited resources.

You could argue that the C&S allocation could be changed, but that takes time for students to agree on a fair amount (and consultation with the relevant parties).

Completely getting rid of the MoU with the ULSU?! Has Seamus read 4a of the MoU? (that the PSU gets the post-grad capitations!) The budget will be zero if that disappears! How is capitation paid? Does it go to the ULSU and then ULSU pays the post-grad portion to the PSU? Or does UL pay the money directly to the PSU? That MoU seems to indicate the money goes to ULSU! If that is the case, the PSU loses it's entitlement to ANY money. When would a new MoU be in place and what is the new MoU?

Patience is something Seamus is clearly lacking which will hurt post-graduates. I currently fear that his actions may result in the PSU being shut down and a post-grad officer being implemented in the ULSU.

YFlyer · 16-09-2014 9:50pm

Hi All,

The Annual General Meeting of the Postgraduate Students’ Union is taking place on Wednesday 17th September, at 6:15pm, in the ULPSU common room.

We would greatly appreciate if you could please attend.
A number of motions are being proposed which will shape the direction our union takes in this coming year, and into the future.

Best regards,

S e a m u s N o o n a n.

SN signature

President of the Postgraduate Students’ Union
University of Limerick

ninty9er · 16-09-2014 10:12pm

Chimaera wrote: »

All we've seen publicly of Seamus in his first few months is an attempt to dismantle the executive structure of the union. Regardless of any critcism of previous presidents, this isn't on at all. There are a lot of checks and balances in the executive structure designed to prevent an individual office holder having too much power and he's trying to remove them.

Regarding C&S funding, the HEA have a recommendation in place that 2/3 of student capitation awarded to students' unions be ringfenced for clubs and societies. UL have always honoured this recommendation to the extent that they were threatening to withold capitation from ULSU a few years ago when they were considering a change to the funding split to put more money into the main union pot.

Wherever that idea came from it wasn't the case when I was President of the SU. The University point blank refused to get involved in an internal political conversation and was very open to reallocation of funding so long as it was accounted for. That's from the perspective of Finance and the VPAR in 2012.

Perpetual Student · 16-09-2014 10:56pm

ninty9er wrote: »

Wherever that idea came from it wasn't the case when I was President of the SU. The University point blank refused to get involved in an internal political conversation and was very open to reallocation of funding so long as it was accounted for. That's from the perspective of Finance and the VPAR in 2012.

I had heard this 2/3 recommendation before but could not recall where, had a google and came across this - an old C & S handbook but a university document none the less:

H T T P

/ulwolves.ie/info/guides/UL%20Wolves%20-%20Rulebook.pdf

P32 is of particular relevance in terms of the split. It looks like this recommendation was in place for a quite a long time, does anyone know when....?

Chimaera · 16-09-2014 10:58pm

ninty9er wrote: »

Wherever that idea came from it wasn't the case when I was President of the SU. The University point blank refused to get involved in an internal political conversation and was very open to reallocation of funding so long as it was accounted for. That's from the perspective of Finance and the VPAR in 2012.

My bad.

PSU motions to reduce accountability

Comments