hopefully the sabbatical officers will take a pay reduction to bring them in line with minimum wage.
perhaps if ULFM and An focal are reintegrated as socs they could take money from CnS and get a non-sabbat Student media officer who would work full or part-time to ensure that student media is maintained at a high standard next year.
either reinstate a cSO officer with a different job spec to last years and hold an election or make it an interview role like the ents officer.
It's a good idea, and I'd wonder whether the motion to retain CO services tabled for the UGM contains some similarity to them.
From reading this it appears as if ULFM will be more independent in that Chairperson will no longer be a sabbat.
One reservation I would have about making An Focal a soc, would be that they may lose the ability to go to companies as the official paper of ULSU to sell advertising. An independent soc paper wouldn't be able to charge the same rates as a ULSU run paper. (Badly worded but hopefully you can get what I mean)
From reading that link, what I'm seeing is that all of the board positions aren't coming up for renewal. Also, is that page internally linked on the ulfm.ie website? It doesn't appear to be.
"If you wish to apply, email a CV with relevant experience etc and a cover letter to firstname.lastname@example.org." 
Next years board is still chosen by this years comms officer.
How did you determine that? The first thing a company will look at company is readership/distribution figures. "ULSU run paper" means nothing. If the reliability and quality is the same (or better) then it won't impact rates.
One reservation I'd have about making it a soc is it will cost C&S money for what historically hasn't been a C&S activity. There's already a large jump in the total number of C&S over the last year that are contesting an unchanged total funding pool (i.e. less for each C&S)
Couldn't agree more on that. That being said I have no idea what the running costs of An Focal etc would be. However we have used to the same level of capitation for the last number of years to fund C&S. There are now close to 70 I believe who will be eligible to apply for budgets, which is a lot more than there ever has been. (I think).
It wouldn't be an issue other than that any extra money we now have is going directly to the SU so as to pay wages and not face redundancies. It would be something that would have to be looked at closely. On the one hand obviously don't want to lose the paper, but on the other, is there enough money in the pot to pay for it when historically as you said yourself it hasn't been a C&S Activity.
I thought the paper paid for itself plus extra? So no need to be a society. ULFM should be a society, makes no sense as a service but would make sense as a society.
Kelly is not taking part in the selection process. The rest of the board, will.
I find it odd that you need a CV and a cover letter to apply to be on ULFM board. Should they not be happy with people wanting to be apart of the board and help run it. Should it not give you exp not require exp.
You could argue this point. But then again, you could also argue that maybe ULFM want to achieve a level of professionalism. I dunno.
Yes and no, there obviously needs to be some general interest in radio etc from those who apply, and a need to get an idea who the person is, hence the motivation for that requirement.
Was a CV and coverletter needed for the current members? I understand the need but you don't need these when you what to be involved in c&s or An Focal. Since ULFM is new should it not be trying to get pe ople involved with the station? How can that be if you need to be approved by the current boards? If you are worried about the level of professionalism for ULFM then why are you not worried about the Sabbats, the people who are running C&S or An Focal?
some of the arguments against ulfm and an focal becoming societies rather than services is that the editors would have less veto control over some of the stories and shows. if they are supposed to be socs they're supposed to be inclusive and facilitative, i.e. you write a ****ty story they still include it because it's a society and they should cater for members. not sure really how this would work out in practice.
more importantly i'm interested in the attitude proclaimed by ginge young which presumably is representative of the rest of the C&S people. basically they want to keep the C&S number down as low as possible to not dilute funds. seems a bit unfair on people who want to start good socs especially when the current socs squander so much money 'on trips'.
Yes, we all sent a coverletter.
100+ different people have gotten involved presenting shows etc without a need to investigate their backgrounds. I don't think that will change. Surely it would be retrograde to just get a general group of people as a board instead of a board of students with skills/knowledge in various areas (which is the aim)
As regard An Focal, a CV etc might not be required but if you want to become a subeditor you'll have to prove your worth, so it's not overly dissimilar.
But did you send in a CV?
And this why students thinks the SU is clique. Ye were appointed by the cureent comm officer who most of ye were friends before or involved with the union. I looked through my emails and I could not see any emails looking for people to get involved. The board is now going to pick who will join them. Can you see how that might looked like a closed group to the average student.
I think I did, possibly.
I don't disagree with you in general. I'm unsure of any alternative way of trying to learn about potential new board members other than send a cover note.
It will be advertised as widely as we can, it is not the intent to limit it to any one group of students.
Taking what I said completely out of context, new clubs and socs are always welcome.
Historically neither of these were C&S. ULFM I think could have been started as a Soc from the beginning, but . If an focal is self sustaining from advertising then no problem. I couldn't even begin to think of a figure for printing costs. Could be quite low. But as I said it would need to be looked at closely. I never actually said it shouldn't happen, just speaking the truth in that things in general are a lot tighter now due to the agreement to help sustain the Union.
My opinion is in no way representative of C&S, it's my own.