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

Biffman

You're absolutely right, 'buddy', I must apologise. What I should have said was we haven't gotten any complaints that were logical and not the rantings of a solipsist* who was annoyed because we didn't give his crappy "news" website free advertising. My bad.

*A solipsist is someone who believes theirs is the only mind in existence, essentially narcissism squared. Just thought I'd save you the time googling it.

maglite

^^ lol Yawn.....

x43r0

daniel.ocarroll wrote: »

Byron,

I've personally written your paper a complaint this year because of your paper's failure to cover Cork Student News' shortlisting for an Eircom Golden Spiders Award and know of at least one other staff member with the website who did. I should also mention that your paper has failed to mention Cork Student News even once since our launch

Why would you expect free publicity from a competitor?

daniel.ocarroll

@x43ro,

I wouldn't really expect "free publicity", but I'd expect a newspaper that's funded entirely by the student body of UCC to report - at least in bare minimal details - on news that's relevant to UCC students. Again, I've never suggested that the UCC Express give us, say, a 1600 page article. That would be like shooting themselves in the foot as you've said, but would a two line mention in, say, the news-in-brief section that a website run by UCC students is expanding into a national news operation, or that it was shortlisted against national broadcasters for a website awards really kill them? I really don't think so; most people I've mentioned that too seem to agree.

@Byron,

I'm always amazed by your aggressiveness and anger -- you're actually as angry as people tell me you are, if not more. I was just pointing out that you received a complaint contrary to what you had incorrectly stated in a post here and you resort once again to your habitual defence of throwing insults.

A complaint is a complaint irrespective of its perceived legitimacy in your biased eyes, and I'd be extremely surprised to find that my complaint was the only one received by the Express this term. That's not to denigrate its quality, but newspapers, being vehicles of popular opinion, and often stirrers of controversy, in my experience generally receive complaints.

I've no intention or time to engage in another 3 page long back and forth as we've done on FUCC and here before - but suffice to say that I'm extremely disappointed that you reneged on a commitment to try and get on amicably last year by (once again) resorting to insult-throwing when fairly challenged on something. It's a real show of character and professionalism..

daniel.ocarroll

crappy "news" website..thanks man!

Biffman

Firstly, for the 5 millionth time, you don't decide what we cover buddy. I wouldn't tell you what to cover, even when you asked me. Incidentally, I was mentioned on your site once and to be honest, it wasn't the most pleasurable experience.

Next, can you please stop editing stuff to make yourself sound like less of an asshole? Cheers.

Yeah, I agreed to be civil if you just left me alone. I don't know why you need my attention to make you feel good about yourself or if you keep a list of the people who've slighted you or something but I will just say, it makes you mighty pathetic either way.

Lastly, complaints do differ in their validity. If someone who really didn't like you complained about everything wrong with your coverage, yes their fingers would be worn down to the bone, but would you consider them all real complaints? I doubt it.

pirateninja

Biffman wrote: »

Firstly, for the 5 millionth time, you don't decide what we cover buddy. I wouldn't tell you what to cover, even when you asked me. Incidentally, I was mentioned on your site once and to be honest, it wasn't the most pleasurable experience.

Next, can you please stop editing stuff to make yourself sound like less of an asshole? Cheers.

Yeah, I agreed to be civil if you just left me alone. I don't know why you need my attention to make you feel good about yourself or if you keep a list of the people who've slighted you or something but I will just say, it makes you mighty pathetic either way.

Lastly, complaints do differ in their validity. If someone who really didn't like you complained about everything wrong with your coverage, yes their fingers would be worn down to the bone, but would you consider them all real complaints? I doubt it.

daniel.ocarroll wrote: »

crappy "news" website..thanks man!

We get it. Ye don't like eachother, take it somewhere else boys.:rolleyes:

CantGetNoSleep

Some bitch fight developing here, you stupid ****

Biffman

Yeah ye're right, no time for this. Unfollow.

daniel.ocarroll

agreed, but just for the record, byron, and for those not following the thread closely, you "started" it (once again)

i told you that you had received a complaint and got your usual string of insults in return (and they just keep accumulating).

good luck to you "buddy". Actually, before I finish, little experiment to keep you occupied tonight: type "ucc student news" into Google. :-)

Richard Cranium

Let me get this straight (and back on topic).

People are outraged because the SU is allegedly trying to give us a Communications officer without telling anyone?

How terribly ironic.

daniel.ocarroll

Thanks for returning this to the discussion, Richard.

Didn't spot the irony, but yeah, very much so.

There might have been an email about this, but they still should, at the very least, have put something about this on their official website (collegeroad.ie), nor does the new position seem to have been mentioned on their FB page. Perhaps the newly instated communications officer can work towards rectifying that!

x43r0

The new position was on the ballot sheet at last years elections and it passed.


I think that's why they're bringing it in

Richard Cranium

Personally I think Keith O'Brien explained the position of the SU very well both here and on the College Road facebook page.

I also think that the new officer is badly needed, and that the extra costs, regardless of who is actually paying for it, will be completely justified as long as the person who gets the position is up to the job. No disrespect to any of last year's union officials, but I'd imagine that some initiatives (the Campus Picnic in particular) would have had much more success if there were more people working full time for the SU, and by extension working full time for the students.

I often get the impression that if Keith O'Brien walked on water he'd be pilloried here for not learning to swim. I don't know why he get's such a hard time, considering that the alternative candidates were promising such nonsense as a second RAG week.

Eliot Rosewater

Richard Cranium wrote: »

People are outraged because the SU is allegedly trying to give us a Communications officer without telling anyone?

Well, we're annoyed that a position costing students €20,000 is being created at a time when cutbacks are causing tutorials to be cancelled and lectures merged. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable.

Richard Cranium wrote: »

How terribly ironic.

I realised that earlier but couldn't think of anyway to twist it to my advantage!

Richard Cranium

As far as I can tell, the real question here seems to be
"Do we need a fully functioning and effective Student's Union?"

My answer to that question is yes. The money isn't being thrown away or wasted- it's going towards employing someone to work full-time on behalf of all the students of the college. This, in my mind, is a good thing. If it was another administration post in the university itself, or extra consultants' fees or something then I'd be more upset about it, but I really don't see anything wrong with creating a more robust SU, especially when the position in question is meant to create more income streams for the SU. In any case, I'd be of the opinion that this cost of roughly €1 per student per year is going to benefit the entire student body much more this way than if would if it were going towards photocopying or putting on an extra few tutorials. It's not really a huge amount of money in the grand scheme of things, and I'm optimistic enough to believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs. In any case, I don't think there was any guarantee that the money set aside for this post would have gone towards anything directly benefitting students anyway. For all we know (and I'm open to correction because I haven't researched this) it could have originally been part of a general administration/bureaucracy budget.

Byron85

Richard Cranium wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the real question here seems to be
"Do we need a fully functioning and effective Student's Union?"

My answer to that question is yes. The money isn't being thrown away or wasted- it's going towards employing someone to work full-time on behalf of all the students of the college. This, in my mind, is a good thing. If it was another administration post in the university itself, or extra consultants' fees or something then I'd be more upset about it, but I really don't see anything wrong with creating a more robust SU, especially when the position in question is meant to create more income streams for the SU. In any case, I'd be of the opinion that this cost of roughly €1 per student per year is going to benefit the entire student body much more this way than if would if it were going towards photocopying or putting on an extra few tutorials. It's not really a huge amount of money in the grand scheme of things, and I'm optimistic enough to believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs. In any case, I don't think there was any guarantee that the money set aside for this post would have gone towards anything directly benefitting students anyway. For all we know (and I'm open to correction because I haven't researched this) it could have originally been part of a general administration/bureaucracy budget.

Ok, regarding the benefits, what kind of benefits is the position likely to create?

samf

Posted a while back from the SU on FUCC:

The current role of the Deputy President will be split into Deputy President/Campaigns and Communications/Commercial. It was decided by Exec to run a referendum on March 8th and 9th to have this position inserted into the constitution. Ring fenced funding for the position has been secured. A break down of the duties involved in each role and in all other officer roles in the Union will be published in the Mid Term Review. In addition a break down of the role split and duties of each officer will shortly be published on collegeroad.ie.

The schedule of the elections is as follows:

Nominations Open on Monday 21st Feb 9:30 am.
Nominations Close on Monday 28th Feb 5:00 pm.
Declaration of candidates Tuesday 1st March 12 noon.
Candidates meeting Tuesday 1st March 6pm.
Postering prohibited until after the candidates meeting.
Candidates training will take place Wednesday 2nd March. (Time & Location TBC)
Candidates will only be allowed to flyer on campus from Monday 7th March.
Elections will take place Tuesday 8th and Wednesday 9th March.

All the officers are available for any potential candidates to come and speak to us about the roles, the Union, or any other matter.

So - there will be a referendum on the new position, therefore those of you against it can vote no and those in favour can vote yes. Everyones happy.

pirateninja

What happens if it's voted down and the person who ran for the position of communications doesn't have an actual position?

samf

They do a Lisbon treaty on it ? No I havent a clue - presumably the person whos elected is just told to get lost, or something along those lines.

Eliot Rosewater

Richard Cranium wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the real question here seems to be
"Do we need a fully functioning and effective Student's Union?"

I think that's to immediately give the position more credit than it necessarily deserves. There is no reason why the current setup isn't functioning and effective, and why we need this extra officer. The main tasks of the Students' Union - representing students on academic bodies and in departments; dealing with students who have hit hard times; pursuing students' interests in the university and, indeed, nationally - are already being fulfilled.

Unless, of course, you consider an ability to organise the likes of Campus Picnic to be essential to a functioning and effective Union. I do not think it is. And I think if the Union wants to pursue those things it should do it using money it has generated itself. The claim is often made that such events will be profitable. Fine, but why are students being asked to pay €18,000 to organise them so?

Richard Cranium wrote: »

In any case, I don't think there was any guarantee that the money set aside for this post would have gone towards anything directly benefitting students anyway. For all we know (and I'm open to correction because I haven't researched this) it could have originally been part of a general administration/bureaucracy budget.

No matter how you construe it, this is still costing the University (and the students) €18,000. Putting money through a layer of bureaucracy does not make it "free" money. It is still money that could potentially be used for better things.

daniel.ocarroll

just go add my last .02 on this. Along the same lines of what I said on FUCC, I think that at the end of the day this is a lot of hot air about absolutely nothing.

The SU is apparently understaffed; vesting too many functions in one position is stupid and undemocratic, hence some of the Deputy President's portfolio is being divested into another position; although the election of the new position doesn't seem to have been as well publicized as it perhaps could have been , it was certainly announced and didn't just arrive through the back door, and finally the money is (apparently, if I'm understanding this correctly), coming from university-centralized rather than student-lived funding. At the end of the day what exactly did the SU do wrong here?

Perhaps as the last poster said people are hoping to use this issue as a springboard to question the legitimacy of the SU in its entirety.

Richard Cranium

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think that's to immediately give the position more credit than it necessarily deserves. There is no reason why the current setup isn't functioning and effective, and why we need this extra officer. The main tasks of the Students' Union - representing students on academic bodies and in departments; dealing with students who have hit hard times; pursuing students' interests in the university and, indeed, nationally - are already being fulfilled.

I'm naive enough to assume that the current and past unions are telling the truth when they say that the Deputy President is being overworked, and that there's a genuine need for the 5th officer. TCD, UCD, and UL all already have 5 sabbatical officers, including some variant of a Communications officer. Besides, with student numbers growing it's only going to get worse. Having the 5th place accommodated for by the university now is guaranteeing (assuming the referendum is passed) that there won't come a point in the future when there will be no doubt in even the most anti-SU student's mind that the current format is too small to be effective, but that there is no room for manoeuvre in relation to enlargement. There is no guarantee, what with all the cutbacks that we're feeling so keenly, that in a couple of year's time the university would have agreed to allocating €18,000 more per annum to the SU.

Unless, of course, you consider an ability to organise the likes of Campus Picnic to be essential to a functioning and effective Union. I do not think it is. And I think if the Union wants to pursue those things it should do it using money it has generated itself. The claim is often made that such events will be profitable. Fine, but why are students being asked to pay €18,000 to organise them so?

Well, frankly, I do. Not the Campus Picnic necessarily, but there's very little point in having initiatives like Mental Health week and all the rest if they're not publicised and promoted properly. As far as I can tell, so far the majority of these campaigns have been confined to certain parts of the main campus, and are unnoticeable anywhere else in the college (not least in the WGB!). Also, the commercial aspect of the new post would mean that the SU will be able to explore and exploit new ways to fund itself without directly taking money away from student services.

No matter how you construe it, this is still costing the University (and the students) €18,000. Putting money through a layer of bureaucracy does not make it "free" money. It is still money that could potentially be used for better things.

No, I disagree with that. This isn't new money, from what I understand. It's money that the college already has and already spends, which is now ringfenced for the Students' Union (and hence for the direct benefit of the students). It's already the case that we aren't seeing the full benefit of our own registration fees, so I think it's highly unlikely that it would have been put towards improving frontline services anyway.

daniel.ocarroll

there's very little point in having initiatives like Mental Health week and all the rest if they're not publicised and promoted properly

Completely agree. There seem to be too many events being organized and not enough awareness of those events.

You're running into another difficulty here though, namely that newspapers and local media only have a limited amount of space to dedicate to UCC news and happenings and will often simply not be interested on something that's seen to be small-scale, and secondly that if the promotion and PR you're referring to is self-promotion, i.e. promoting on campus with posters, flyers and the other conventional means, that requires additional funding, which is always a problem.

Perhaps the answer would be great social and viral media marketing. Again, I can't understand why commercial is tacked on to the new portfolio. Wouldn't it be better to subsume that into the existing Deputy Role and leave the new person focus entirely on media, PR, and promotion, which are all inter-linked to a large extend? I think a Press and Social Media Officer would be a nicely rounded position in itself but then again I don't know very well how the Union works or operates, its budget, manpower needs, etc.

Eliot Rosewater

Richard Cranium wrote: »

I'm naive enough to assume that the current and past unions are telling the truth when they say that the Deputy President is being overworked, and that there's a genuine need for the 5th officer.

Well I don't think the SU is lying either, for what it's worth. I just think they've taken on a lot of stuff they needn't have, and that the new officer is there to help them to do that stuff. I don't think the SU should be getting involved in so much. Campus Picnic was a nice idea and all, but it's a students' union. It's not an entertainment company.

And I don't trust people involved in the SU to draw an appropriate line. For many people the SU is a hobby course, and it's only natural that they'll want it to do loads of stuff and get loads of funding.

Richard Cranium wrote: »

Also, the commercial aspect of the new post would mean that the SU will be able to explore and exploit new ways to fund itself without directly taking money away from student services.

But if the thing is there to make a profit, why does the SU require funding for it?

Richard Cranium wrote: »

No, I disagree with that. This isn't new money, from what I understand. It's money that the college already has and already spends, which is now ringfenced for the Students' Union (and hence for the direct benefit of the students). It's already the case that we aren't seeing the full benefit of our own registration fees, so I think it's highly unlikely that it would have been put towards improving frontline services anyway.

I don't see why not. It's not as if the money would evaporate into bureaucratic nothingness if it wasn't being spent on the SU. Although the point has merit and would be worth investigation, I sincerely doubt that the UCC would otherwise spend it on, you know, a professional pencil-sharpener or something.

KnifeWRENCH

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Right. We'll try this again.

Less of the aggro.
Less of the facepalms.
If you can't discuss things civilly, then this will just be locked again.

Any personal abuse will warrant an infraction and/or ban.

....................

Biffman wrote: »

You're absolutely right, 'buddy', I must apologise. What I should have said was we haven't gotten any complaints that were logical and not the rantings of a solipsist* who was annoyed because we didn't give his crappy "news" website free advertising. My bad.

*A solipsist is someone who believes theirs is the only mind in existence, essentially narcissism squared. Just thought I'd save you the time googling it.

Biffman wrote: »

Firstly, for the 5 millionth time, you don't decide what we cover buddy. I wouldn't tell you what to cover, even when you asked me. Incidentally, I was mentioned on your site once and to be honest, it wasn't the most pleasurable experience.

Next, can you please stop editing stuff to make yourself sound like less of an asshole? Cheers.

Yeah, I agreed to be civil if you just left me alone. I don't know why you need my attention to make you feel good about yourself or if you keep a list of the people who've slighted you or something but I will just say, it makes you mighty pathetic either way.
Lastly, complaints do differ in their validity. If someone who really didn't like you complained about everything wrong with your coverage, yes their fingers would be worn down to the bone, but would you consider them all real complaints? I doubt it.

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

Some bitch fight developing here, you stupid ****

*bangs head against desk*

Biffman infracted, CantGetNoSleep warned.

(Would have done this sooner but wasn't online at the weekend. Apologies to those discussing the matter properly for interupting the flow of the thread; feel free to resume on-topic stuff.....)

x43r0

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Mod Stuff

If people are reporting posts then fair enough but the thread hasn't been that bad. We're perfectly able to take and give back whats thrown here.

Relax

KnifeWRENCH

x43r0 wrote: »

If people are reporting posts then fair enough but the thread hasn't been that bad. We're perfectly able to take and give back whats thrown here.

Relax

People did report the posts. Therefore, I responded.

But thanks for the 'Moderating 101' tip, I'll be sure to keep it in mind.....

Byron85

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

People did report the posts. Therefore, I responded.

But thanks for the 'Moderating 101' tip, I'll be sure to keep it in mind.....

Could always make someone else a mod as it seems to be only you moderating the place these days. *ahem* me *ahem* :P:D