SU to get a 5th officer costing €20,000 a year without students being consulted

Eliot Rosewater

The Express (rather timidly) reported this week that the SU is to have a fifth permanent officer from next year. The position will cost the students (who pay for the SU through the reg fee) about twenty thousand euro. The students haven't been consulted about this at all.

In my opinion, this is no different to Irish governments appointing so many Ministers of State. They serve little or no purpose other than to act as a political reward. The cost of them is, of course, not borne by those creating them, so there's little or no reason why not to.

We're in a recession, and this is showing. There have been cutbacks in all departments, and these have affected the University's ability to educate undergraduates. I would much prefer if the €20,000 was channelled into actually improving our education instead of delivering another job for the boys.

I am also highly unimpressed by the fact that the people paying for this - you and I - have not been consulted. Are the SU taking a lesson out of Mr. Cowen's rulebook?

ReacherCreature

Any idea what the role will comprise of?

I scanned through the express and I agree, it was kept quiet. Didn't read it thoroughly though. €20,000 is a little ridiculous to me.

IHeartChemistry

Deputy Presidents role has been divided in two according to the Express. We're getting a Communications officer now. Is there any great need for this?

Eliot Rosewater

The President's video log, which was posted yesterday, makes no mention of it, nor does any of the recent email correspondence from the SU. The CollegeRoad.ie Facebook page is similarly quiet.

I'm very suspicious of the Express. In the same article Byron Murphy refers to the Express and the Motley as the SU's media outlets. That's media independence for you. A move like this should have been covered more extensively - there should have been a for and against debate thing. It's €20,000. I think they're trying to get this in on the sly - why else would the SU not have mentioned it at all?

IHeartChemistry

Maybe the SU are waiting for the elections before the officially announce it? I think half a page in the Express is bad form. They should have said it sooner or at least given students a chance to express opinion on it. This could really backfire on them among the student body...

Eliot Rosewater

Yeah, maybe they're waiting 'til the ballot, when they can say "but it's too late to go back".

The SU is our Union. It is funded with our money. If they want to add another permanent officer at the cost of €20,000 then they have a moral responsibility to ask us, as far as I'm concerned.

IHeartChemistry

I just don't see how we can afford 20 grand extra a year when UCC is already in severe debt like all other universities...

Byron85

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The Express (rather timidly) reported this week that the SU is to have a fifth permanent officer from next year. The position will cost the students (who pay for the SU through the reg fee) about twenty thousand euro. The students haven't been consulted about this at all.

In my opinion, this is no different to Irish governments appointing so many Ministers of State. They serve little or no purpose other than to act as a political reward. The cost of them is, of course, not borne by those creating them, so there's little or no reason why not to.

We're in a recession, and this is showing. There have been cutbacks in all departments, and these have affected the University's ability to educate undergraduates. I would much prefer if the €20,000 was channelled into actually improving our education instead of delivering another job for the boys.

I am also highly unimpressed by the fact that the people paying for this - you and I - have not been consulted. Are the SU taking a lesson out of Mr. Cowen's rulebook?

€20,000 a year while the sociology department can't afford tutors and one of my psychology lecturers told us yesterday that she wasn't supposed to photocopy stuff for us "due to budget cutbacks".

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm very suspicious of the Express. In the same article Byron Murphy refers to the Express and the Motley as the SU's media outlets.

Interesting. They have been very insistent this year that they are completely independent of SU interference yet they said that they're the SU's media outlets. Cognitive dissonance, oh how I love it.

pirateninja

Open to correction completely here...

I think the extra 20000 + is coming from the college. AFAIK there were talks with Con O' Brien who agreed to fund the 5th sabatical officer.

I have to say though, it's ridiculous the lack of consultation thats been happening with students, even something as small as a survey could have been done. Personally I'd rather an extra 20 grand in the student hardship fund instead of a 5th officer.

On another note, the express has become so bias it's hardly a news source anymore! It reads like and SU press release. The 5th sabat option was known about by people within the SU or in fact anyone who's remotely interested in the SU in October/November but the express is only reporting now which I find ridiculous.

x43r0

I could have sworn this was put to a vote a couple of months ago


Although it would be weird for that many people to have forgotten about it so I'm obviously wrong.


I'm all for it. The SU is hilariously understaffed as it is. A 5th officer can only help

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The students haven't been consulted about this at all.

Oh but we were; the SU put a new constitution up for referendum last March and it was passed, despite people like myself advising the student body to vote against it. Included in that constitution was the provision for a fifth paid sabbatical officer. Perhaps if those who are complaining now actually bothered to go out and vote against it, they wouldn't have anything to complain about now.

Although, funnily enough, the fifth officer was one of the few parts of the constitution that I DID agree with.

x43r0 wrote:

The SU is hilariously understaffed as it is. A 5th officer can only help

+1 to this – sometimes it seems that no matter how many people are helping the SU, there's always more work to be done.

Aodan83

IHeartChemistry wrote: »

We're getting a Communications officer now. Is there any great need for this?

Communications officer? Sounds like we're getting a PR guy to me.
It's a bit strange alright that they would be so quiet about something that really should be a big deal to them.

Keith_OB

Dear all,

Firstly may I say that for such strong feelings I have yet to receive any contact on this, and checking boards.ie should not be part of my regular day!

The lack of information re: the changes in officers etc are due to it not being planned for dissemination to students until next week, as the working of the referenda is with our legal aids.

Over the past 3 years there has been a consistent argument for the expansion of the SU staffing as the Union is woefully understaffed and the officers are overworked.

As a candidate for President last year I gathered names for a referendum to create a 5th Officer position, namely a Marketing & Entertainments Officer, which received approx 1,600 signatures. I ran on a platform of expansion of the SU and key to this was the inclusion of a 5th officer and the creation of various business/commercial strategies for the Union to generate revenue. I received over 1,700 votes in a 7 (including RON) candidate race. Therefore on both counts I believe the student body has been consulted and has overwhelmingly empowered me with a mandate.

In relation to the cost of the 5th Officer: it will not cost students anything. As President I negotiated an increase in the core grant from the University stemming from the Registration Fee/Student Services Charge to cover the cost of a 5th Officer, along with another part-time officer with headroom for expenses. This, despite being somewhat promised in the Constitution from the 2010 March referendum placed by the prior Executive had not been guaranteed prior to its placing. When I approached the issue on taking up office I had to lobby for the funding and it has now been guaranteed.

I believe this is a significant victory for the SU as it seriously allows for the expansion of HR and services that the SU can provide.

This does not come at the detriment to either other student services. Further, I am looking to re-negotiate a further increase to the SU in light of the Budget 2011 changes.

Myself and the SU Executive examined a range of proposals around the splitting of the Deputy President role to take into consideration two key issues;

1. How can we make the role(s) and the Union more efficient in catering for students' needs?
2. How can we use this to meet and surpass the challenges the Union face in the recession?

The Union this year, due to the recession impacting us in a variety of ways (namely a 40% general drop in student spending in all areas, i.e. Ents, Clubs etc.) will face a projected decrease in Budget of approx €40,000. Due to cuts in allowances for travel, accommodation and overnight expenses and other sundries I put in place at the start of the year, I expect to recoup a significant amount of this in cost saving measures compared to the previous year. We are in a healthy financial position, so I do not expect the Union to make a loss in the end of year accounts, and any profit to be re-invested in services/goods to students.

There are a significant amount of commercial actives that I and the Deputy President are involved in, possibly too much so, and far more that I as President wish to expand on. However are are overworked, and as such could be more efficient.

The Executive believe that there due to the significant amount of work around campaigns, union organisation, promotion/communication of the Union, the need for revenue generation away from entertainments, and the large amount of commercial projects the SU are hoping to investigate and implement, that a fifth officer is needed. I can not go into what these are in detail due to it being commercially sensitive.

The roles are briefly (and not comprehensively!) are as follows:

Campaigns / Deputy President
o Campaigns (Education, Welfare, Presidential)
o Union Promotion (UCC, Locality, Media)
o Union Organiser

Commercial & Communications
o External Brand promotion to business/industry
o Liaison to Media Exec
o Advertising
 Sponsorship
 Online Web-Advertising
o Commercial Operations & Services
 Promotion/development of commercial ventures
 Online Ticketing
 Online Marketing
o General promotion of services i.e Common Room
o On-campus promotions


I hope this answers some of your questions, and If you require further information please feel free to contact me on the below details.

--
Yours warmly,

Keith O' Brien
-President UCC's Students' Union

An t-Uachtarán
Aontas na Mac Léinn
Coláiste na hOllscoile, Corcaigh

T: 021 490 3218
M: 086 855 4031
F: 021 490 3219
E: president@uccsu.ie
W: www.uccsu.ie
FB: http://www.facebook.com/CollegeRoadie

UCC Students' Union and its members are proud members of the Union of Students in Ireland (USI).

Eliot Rosewater

Keith_OB wrote: »

Firstly may I say that for such strong feelings I have yet to receive any contact on this, and checking boards.ie should not be part of my regular day!

Of course you haven't heard anything about it - you failed to mention it in your video log, the SU email or on your Facebook page. The article in the Express was clearly written in a quiet manner.

Keith_OB wrote: »

Over the past 3 years there has been a consistent argument for the expansion of the SU staffing as the Union is woeful understaffed and the officers are overworked.

Just because you have gotten arguments from certain people does not negate the fact the SU is based on the student as a whole. Any big move like this should be put to a vote. And having a catch-all referendum on a new SU constitution doesn't cut it: members should be given the opportunity to vote separately on each individual change, if that change is big enough to warrant it. €20,000 a year, in a recession, in the midst of funding cuts, clearly is.

Additionally, I don't recall any serious attempt last year to inform students about the contents of the constitution.

Keith_OB wrote: »

In relation to the cost of the 5th Officer: it will not cost students anything.

What a load of tosh. Us students pay money to the university, and some of this money is being channelled into this 5th officer position. Are you suggesting the university has a money tree from which it plucked funds to pay for this? That €20,000 would be far better spent on educational activities, like undoing some of the funding cuts that have resulted in less tutorials and classes.

Eliot Rosewater

Both LPField and x43r0 have argued that this position is warranted. That's fine. However you are only two people out of a student population of seventeen thousand. And it's the student population who will be paying for this. The student population deserves to be consulted.

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps if those who are complaining now actually bothered to go out and vote against it, they wouldn't have anything to complain about now.

I actually did vote against the constitution, but don't let that get in the way of making such a presumption.

Keith_OB

I have to say though, it's ridiculous the lack of consultation thats been happening with students, even something as small as a survey could have been done. Personally I'd rather an extra 20 grand in the student hardship fund instead of a 5th officer.

Re: consultation, see above.
Re: Hardship fund. We have negotiated an increase in the fund from the University. However the recession has significantly reduced the amount of revenue we have generally available and the Hardship Fund is always prioritized in receiving funding over anything else. Hence why I believe we need to expand our revenue income away from Ents.

We have designated the Student Hardship Fund as a R&G charity along with the Hope Foundation and the Horgan's Buildings Senior Citizens' Trust.

€20,000 a year while the sociology department can't afford tutors and one of my psychology lecturers told us yesterday that she wasn't supposed to photocopy stuff for us "due to budget cutbacks".

All the areas of the University have devolved Budgets that they have to operate in. You could have questioned the President of UCC on it last night at Student Council (which was well advertised) and you have a second chance to ask him next Wednesday in Boole 3 at 1pm (I think) as part of his regular addresses to staff.

On Governing Body, on GB on Students (Committee of GB) and every other committee myself, Greg or Daithi sit on have hammered the tutorial and materials issues into them. Tutorials are high on the agenda for the Governing Body on Students which I and staff sit on as Governors is a top priority- the academic governors and us are relentless on this.

Keith_OB

I am not being paid to get into a tit for tat on boards.ie, and you have my contact details.

Of course you haven't heard anything about it - you failed to mention it in your video log, the SU email or on your Facebook page. The article in the Express was clearly written in a quiet manner.

Selective quote, I told you we hadn't announced it yet. The Express wanted to do a piece, off with them, wasn't asked for a quotation on it myself

Any big move like this should be put to a vote. And having a catch-all referendum on a new SU constitution doesn't cut it: members should be given the opportunity to vote separately on each individual change, if that change is big enough to warrant it. €20,000 a year, in a recession, in the midst of funding cuts, clearly is.

Sorry I am not sure are you intentionally misunderstanding what I had written. I did not say there was a new constitution, and I did say there were referenda that will be put to a vote.

€20,000 a year, in a recession, with the possibility to make many times that back for students. Its a strategic decision based on the needs of the Union to serve the student body as a whole.

Additionally, I don't recall any serious attempt last year to inform students about the contents of the constitution.

Indeed there wasn't, and that was a previous SU Executive. You have/would have/I hope to give at least 30 days notice of these referenda being put.

What a load of tosh. Us students pay money to the university, and some of this money is being channelled into this 5th officer position. Are you suggesting the university has a money tree from which it plucked funds to pay for this? That €20,000 would be far better spent on educational activities, like undoing some of the funding cuts that have resulted in less tutorials and classes.

The University receives money from a variety of sources which is located into a central Budget and then devolved to Colleges and VP budget holders for decision. Explaining the entire budgetary process on boards.ie isn't exactly my idea of a great afternoon.

Who says the money this person will generate can't be used on educational activities? The Education Officer already provides a grinds and study skills function, who says we couldn't expand/create a tutoring service?

Eliot Rosewater

I think you're pursuing mutually exclusive aims. Every euro that goes into the SU is a euro that can't go into delivering teaching and other services.

Keith_OB wrote: »

I am not being paid to get into a tit for tat on boards.ie, and you have my contact details.

I set up this thread to discuss the issue with my fellow Boardies, not with the explicit intention of getting a response from the SU. You know, it's not always about you.

Keith_OB wrote: »

Sorry I am not sure are you intentionally misunderstanding what I had written. I did not say there was a new constitution, and I did say there were referenda that will be put to a vote.

What are your referenda about?

By the way, you getting elected is not justification for the lack of a referendum. When voting in representative elections voters have to consider all the issues in one go, and pick the candidate that is best on balance. I voted for you because you were the principle main candidate who wasn't interested in turning the SU into a night club. That does not mean I endorse the 5th officer position. Why don't you put it to a vote? It's the Students' Union, after all.

maglite

Keith_OB wrote: »

Dear all,

Firstly may I say that for such strong feelings I have yet to receive any contact on this, and checking boards.ie should not be part of my regular day!

So?

I received over 1,700 votes in a 7 (including RON) candidate race. Therefore on both counts I believe the student body has been consulted and has overwhelmingly empowered me with a mandate.

10% is hardly overwhelming, Sure Cowen is at about 8% atm,.

In relation to the cost of the 5th Officer: it will not cost students anything

.

I would like to introduce you to the concept of opportunity cost.

x43r0

maglite wrote: »

10% is hardly overwhelming, Sure Cowen is at about 8% atm

Ah come on now, any knob can pluck out a figure like that without mentioning the total turnout which was nowhere near 17,000.


Don't bend facts to back up your argument, just use them as they are

Byron85

x43r0 wrote: »

Ah come on now, any knob can pluck out a figure like that without mentioning the total turnout which was nowhere near 17,000.


Don't bend facts to back up your argument, just use them as they are

Wasn't the turn out in the region of 6,000 or so?

PhatPiggins

Mr President if you're going to use boards as a means of promoting yourself and the SU it is only reasonable that you answer any questions that boardsies have on here.

This is our preferred medium of communication and if you don't want/expect to answer questions you'd be best served not posting at all.

maglite

x43r0 wrote: »

Ah come on now, any knob can pluck out a figure like that without mentioning the total turnout which was nowhere near 17,000.


Don't bend facts to back up your argument, just use them as they are

So lets use your best figures, 35% of those who voted, thats still not overwhelming, Hows that for a figure a knob picked out of the air?


You can't claim an overwhelming mandate with the support of 10% of a population. It does't matter if a large proportion did't vote.

Polls such as REDC do not just include those who voted either.

Eliot Rosewater

I think this notion of a mandate is a total red herring. As I said, when the President received all those votes they were for a variety of reasons - hell, I imagine he even got a few for promising to fight to reduce the lecture attendance minimum of medicine to 50%.

There is no reason why there shouldn't be a referendum on this - unless the SU are afraid it won't pass, of course. Let the student body decide. It's our union, a fact which is being repeatedly glossed over.

Eliot Rosewater

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I actually did vote against the constitution, but don't let that get in the way of making such a presumption.

Well done to you, then. I don't recall naming you as one of those who didn't vote, though; it's not always about you

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I think you're pursuing mutually exclusive aims. Every euro that goes into the SU is a euro that can't go into delivering teaching and other services.

They're hardly mutually exclusive. The SU can be a powerful body to examine how the university spends its money and ensure that it is spent properly, not to mention the fact that the SU provides essential non-education supports to students -- ever wonder how many students would be unable to stay in college without the support of the SU Welfare Officer?

These arguments about cost are all too familiar; they're really, really similar to the Youth Defence campaigns for SUs to disaffiliate from the USI so that students would supposedly be able to buy an extra pint every academic year. Laudable aims, indeed.

maglite wrote:

So lets use your best figures, 35% voted, thats still not overwhelming, Hows that for a figure a knob picked out of the air?

The thing about representative democracies, like the SU, is that the electorate gets the representation that it "deserves". If students aren't interested enough to go out and vote, then there will never be an "overwhelming mandate from the total student populace", the best that can be hoped for is a strong mandate from the total valid poll. The argument could well be made that the SU should do more to engage voters, but you're never going to get a 100% turnout, are you? Voters can't exactly be forced into the polling booths and told to cast a ballot or be thrown out of UCC.

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

I think this notion of a mandate is a total red herring.

NOW who sounds like Cowen?

Byron85

Deleted User wrote: »

Well done to you, then. I don't recall naming you as one of those who didn't vote, though; it's not always about you



They're hardly mutually exclusive. The SU can be a powerful body to examine how the university spends its money and ensure that it is spent properly, not to mention the fact that the SU provides essential non-education supports to students -- ever wonder how many students would be unable to stay in college without the support of the SU Welfare Officer?

These arguments about cost are all too familiar; they're really, really similar to the Youth Defence campaigns for SUs to disaffiliate from the USI so that students would supposedly be able to buy an extra pint every academic year. Laudable aims, indeed.



The thing about representative democracies, like the SU, is that the electorate gets the representation that it "deserves". If students aren't interested enough to go out and vote, then there will never be an "overwhelming mandate from the total student populace", the best that can be hoped for is a strong mandate from the total valid poll. The argument could well be made that the SU should do more to engage voters, but you're never going to get a 100% turnout, are you? Voters can't exactly be forced into the polling booths and told to cast a ballot or be thrown out of UCC.



NOW who sounds like Cowen?

TL,DR.

It's about wanting accountability for a a lot of money being spent, seemingly needlessly. Nothing more and nothing less.

Pi^2

The SU can be a powerful body to examine how the university spends its money and ensure that it is spent properly.

Who will guard the guards? The SU seem unwilling to examine themselves. Where is the "powerful body" who examine them and ensure that they are spending money wisely?

Maybe ye could drop what ye are doing and make me a bar chart with two bars - one could be the amount of money ye have saved, and the other could be the amount of money ye have spent to make those "savings". I'd imagine the result would be hugely embaressing/ironic.

The argument could well be made that the SU should do more to engage voters, but you're never going to get a 100% turnout, are you? Voters can't exactly be forced into the polling booths and told to cast a ballot or be thrown out of UCC.

Here's an idea, do the voting via e-mail or survey monkey or something. Oh no, RUN!!! Somebody suggested voting over the interent. That's disgusting. Albeit, highly efficient/accurate/quick. Then the sensible people in college might vote. But of course, we'd never have another President then, because Re-Open Nominations would win everytime.

Byron85

Byron85 wrote:

TL,DR.

It's about wanting accountability for a a lot of money being spent, seemingly needlessly. Nothing more and nothing less.

Good thinking. What could be more productive than demanding answers, ignoring them when they're given, and then demanding them again?

Pi^2 wrote: »

Maybe ye could drop what ye are doing and make me a bar chart with two bars - one could be the amount of money ye have saved, and the other could be the amount of money ye have spent to make those "savings". I'd imagine the result would be hugely embaressing/ironic.

Clever wheeze, old bean. I'm sure if you put together a detailed itinerary of your yearly spending and sent it to the SU, they'd be happy to put a bar chart comparing the money they've saved you with your annual contribution to the Union. Let me know how that works out for you.

Pi^2 wrote:

Here's an idea, do the voting via e-mail or survey monkey or something. Oh no, RUN!!! Somebody suggested voting over the interent. That's disgusting. Albeit, highly efficient/accurate/quick.

Absolutely, if there was a secure method of online voting then it would be an ideal way to handle SU elections. That's probably why the SU investigated the idea of doing so in the Equality Officer elections back in October, but they had to drop it because it was nigh-impossible to make secure. I'm assuming that if you're already upset about the sabbats making €20,000 a year (on paper that's minimum wage, but when you look at hours actually worked it's quite a bit less) then you wouldn't want their selection process to be easily abused?

Pi^2 wrote:

Then the sensible people in college might vote.

I'm sure you're trying to insult someone here, but I can't imagine whom.

Byron85

Deleted User wrote: »

Good thinking. What could be more productive than demanding answers, ignoring them when they're given, and then demanding them again?

It's a reaction to you. I'm allergic to bull**** you see.

Byron85

Byron85 wrote: »

It's a reaction to you. I'm allergic to bull**** you see.

Nice try, though.

Byron85

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice try, though.

I'm not actually. I post in here quite regularly and know a few others who post here too outside of internet fora.

I have a problem with your attitude on here dismissing any and all criticism and somehow managing to conflate the argument/discussion with those nutters from Youth Defence. Your tone was dismissive and arrogant; you asked Pi^2 to provide a list of his expenses and his contribution to the S.U's finances. That's nothing short of a deflection and a red herring. What he, or I for that matter, spend money on is no-one's business. However, the S.U's expenditure is under scrutiny because I pay for it, you pay for, Pi^2 pays for it and on and on. The S.U is answerable to us despite what you may think.