Legal opinion - DUCAC constitution

electrogrimey

Denerick wrote: »

The SU has one meaning on a broader level - a reflection of vain personal ambition.

Ok, point taken, that's the answer I was looking for originally.

Denerick wrote: »

First year, I take it?

Ha, yes. Why are you so insistant on knowing? It amuses me.

Denerick

electrogrimey wrote: »

Ha, yes. Why are you so insistant on knowing? It amuses me.

Because if you are not on some committee by final year, you'll know for yourself why these people are so obnoxious.

electrogrimey

Denerick wrote: »

Because if you are not on some committee by final year, you'll know for yourself why these people are so obnoxious.

Even though I'm in first year, I have many friends both in and out of Trinity, from 2nd year to being finished masters. I've a good idea about the silliness that goes on in the SU, and have no interest in becoming one. If I join any committee, it will be in a society I'm interested in, and not to benefit my CV, but to try and make positive changes within said society.

An example of said silliness is the (unconfirmed) fact that Keith Florea was told to step down from the Ents election by the Ents elders, and that if he did so could run the next year, and they would make sure he won. (He ignored them and ran, and lost).

Denerick

electrogrimey wrote: »

Even though I'm in first year, I have many friends both in and out of Trinity, from 2nd year to being finished masters. I've a good idea about the silliness that goes on in the SU, and have no interest in becoming one. If I join any committee, it will be in a society I'm interested in, and not to benefit my CV, but to try and make positive changes within said society.

An example of said silliness is the (unconfirmed) fact that Keith Florea was told to step down from the Ents election by the Ents elders, and that if he did so could run the next year, and they would make sure he won. (He ignored them and ran, and lost).

Touché..

just-joe

This thread is way way off-topic. Its ridiculous the way half the threads in the TCD forum end up in arguments about the SU, or at least involving the word hack.

To get back on topic.. The sport/funding situation in Trinity will not change in the near future, because despite what the American Football club thinks, there just isn't enough money to go around. Is it not true that the clubs who have been around for years, and have proved themselves, deserve it more? This is the usual argument, but anyway here goes... if one more club is let in, then what about the others who want in, when will it stop?

I have no real idea how the CSC works, so I won't comment/compare. Except for the fact that, the average soc takes nowhere near as much money to run as the average sports club, so its a completely different situation, and thus probably shouldn't even be compared in the first place.

Kurtosis

just-joe wrote: »

This thread is way way off-topic. Its ridiculous the way half the threads in the TCD forum end up in arguments about the SU, or at least involving the word hack.

To get back on topic.. The sport/funding situation in Trinity will not change in the near future, because despite what the American Football club thinks, there just isn't enough money to go around. Is it not true that the clubs who have been around for years, and have proved themselves, deserve it more? This is the usual argument, but anyway here goes... if one more club is let in, then what about the others who want in, when will it stop?

I have no real idea how the CSC works, so I won't comment/compare. Except for the fact that, the average soc takes nowhere near as much money to run as the average sports club, so its a completely different situation, and thus probably shouldn't even be compared in the first place.

I'd actually have suggested a model comparable to the CSC would work best. Societies get more money depending on how popular/how many members they have (up to a certain level) and how active they are (how many events they hold). Obviously the activity part is harder to gauge with clubs, but it still seems a fairer model than the current first come, first served.

Denerick

penguin88 wrote: »

I'd actually have suggested a model comparable to the CSC would work best. Societies get more money depending on how popular/how many members they have (up to a certain level) and how active they are (how many events they hold). Obviously the activity part is harder to gauge with clubs, but it still seems a fairer model than the current first come, first served.

I mooted a policy recently where societies received no central funding. The individuals involved would agree to incur the cost of the society themselves. The number of hacks running around our university would have been cut by 75% at least. It was controversial, and of course never took off. But I have high hopes in passing it with my SU President campaign next year.

Godge

This is a wonderful thread. It allows oldies like me to realise that over twenty years since we left, nothing has changed in TCD re the SU, CSC and DUCAC.

Unlike my predecessors who would have had to visit TCD to find out if anything had changed, I have boards to enlighten me.

Thanks to all posters.

gearoidof

Denerick, I have a strong urge to punch you. For your sake, I hope I never find out who you are. If DUCAC gave my club no money, I'd have to invest around €1k to play each year...

No club gets enough money (except croquet). the CSC and DUCAC are different beasts entirely. In general, clubs have higher current expenditures than socs, and capital investment varies greatly. I know that some clubs would expect to pay €2k per year just in tournament fees (the right to play in the tourney, no more). Some societies have difficulty spending all the money they're allotted.

On topic, funding transparency from DUCAC would be nice

Denerick

gearoidof wrote: »

Denerick, I have a strong urge to punch you. For your sake, I hope I never find out who you are. If DUCAC gave my club no money, I'd have to invest around €1k to play each year...

No club gets enough money (except croquet). the CSC and DUCAC are different beasts entirely. In general, clubs have higher current expenditures than socs, and capital investment varies greatly. I know that some clubs would expect to pay €2k per year just in tournament fees (the right to play in the tourney, no more). Some societies have difficulty spending all the money they're allotted.

On topic, funding transparency from DUCAC would be nice

An urge to punch me? Really? Words have that effect on you? And here was I, thinking that I went to a civilised institution were the marketplace of ideas have an aura of respectability. But no, down in the gutter with the savages we are. Name a time, name a place. You punch me, I'll quote Gibbon to you. We'll see who has the highest moral ground.

Sir Ophiuchus

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, would someone lock this horrible mess of a thread?

Boston

gearoidof wrote: »

Denerick, I have a strong urge to punch you. For your sake, I hope I never find out who you are.

This is all anyone read of your post.

BlueCam

just-joe wrote: »

To get back on topic.. The sport/funding situation in Trinity will not change in the near future, because despite what the American Football club thinks, there just isn't enough money to go around. Is it not true that the clubs who have been around for years, and have proved themselves, deserve it more? This is the usual argument, but anyway here goes... if one more club is let in, then what about the others who want in, when will it stop?

If you think there needs to be a cap then fine, but then ask yourself: is "newest" the best way to decide who gets no money? No it is not true that being old means you've proven yourself at all, it simply means that DUCAC haven't been able to kick you out because you've had one meeting every two years. Windsurfing, for example, has done nothing for the past four or five years, but have got a stay on their expulsion every time simply because they pulled together two or three people for a chat in the 103rd of their 104 weeks. Have they proven themselves? And is anyone going to argue that the cricket club is well run - nothing during freshers' week, website two years out of date, no advertising about trials or how to play, etc. And yet they get the biggest piece of land in college, why? Because they're "old". Have they proven themselves in the last ten years? (And no, I'm not suggesting we kick them out at all, just pointing out how ludicrous it is to suggest that because they're 100 years old they're automatically better run and more deserving of money than a club that's five years old.)

So if you think there should be a cap, then surely you'd do your case far more justice by arguing for a system where the clubs which receive funding are chosen on the basis of membership/active membership/evidence that that have expanded their membership/success on a national level/the existence of a proper coaching structure/demonstrated financial need due to costs of equipment or costs of competing/etc. Basically what penguin88 said above then. Pick 49 clubs based on all of that if you want; I still wouldn't be in favour of it because I wouldn't trust DUCAC's capacity to choose 49 fairly in any case, but I can see the logic in the argument. And regardless, I'm sure you'll agree the decision should be put to a vote at an AGM and not done behind closed doors.

On a side note in relation to what was said on the first page about Drinda and her minions, I've genuinely nothing against her - she does more than the rest of that office put together from what I can tell. And though she may be on the committee, in fairness she may not have been there five years ago when this rule was brought in (whereas the turnover on DUCAC's committee is such that the rest of them who are there now probably were there five years ago and will be there in 30).

Denerick wrote: »

My time in Trinity involves getting a good degree and on occasion, getting drunk.

Wait til he finds out DUCAC run the Pav; this discussion about its funds will take on a whole new importance.

Denerick

Wait til he finds out DUCAC run the Pav; this discussion about its funds will take on a whole new importance.

I did not know that. Are the Pav's accounts published annually for public dissemination? If, technically, I like every other student am a member of DUCAC, am I not entitled to know where they get their money? Considering I pay for these extra-curricular activities with my registration fee's, I feel I have a right to know how many can's of Bavaria the rugger jocks get for free on any given weekday night.

BlueCam

Denerick wrote: »

I did not know that. Are the Pav's accounts published annually for public dissemination? If, technically, I like every other student am a member of DUCAC, am I not entitled to know where they get their money? Considering I pay for these extra-curricular activities with my registration fee's, I feel I have a right to know how many can's of Bavaria the rugger jocks get for free on any given weekday night.

They claim they are, but if you actually want to see any of DUCAC's accounts you have to go in, point out you're allowed see them, and then wait for about two weeks/until whenever they remember to call you.

just-joe

Denerick wrote: »

how many can's of Bavaria the rugger jocks get for free on any given weekday night.

I'd guess zero.

just-joe

Well we all know there are a few naff clubs out there, but if theyre defunct and dont apply for funding, and there still isn't enough to go around, then what would happen if every club that emerged started to apply? I'm not saying that (in an ideal world) the age of the club should be the only factor, but it counts for alot in comparison with a club that is just one or two years old? Even if cricket aren't around in freshers week they run a good show later in the year, with (afaik) 3 competitive teams.

And taking membership into account is dodgy too, for a couple of reasons: boxing club sign up hundreds in freshers week cos people think its cool, none of them ever do it, but do they still deserve lots of funding because of it? And well established clubs which run expensive sports by nature (say sailing, or equestrian etc) but only have a small dedicated group of people, do they deserve less? Turning up to Freshers week and signing up gullible first years is not what sport is about.

I don't want to come across as saying that the current situation is perfect, or that there are no changes which could be made for the better, but just make an opposition to your argument. If the American football club sticks around it will recieve funding.

And as for the cricket pitch, that holy ground, do you really expect Trinity to just flip and let a bunch of wannabe Americans trample all over it?!