Student Medical Center to Start Charging

ninty9er

freyners wrote: »

Derek if the printing deadline for an focal was the week before it was released how did you only see the level of charges when an focal was released
Does that mean you havent been keeping up to date on the issue yourself?

It means I was unaware that there was a price list until I saw An Focal. I had a reasonable expectation that I would hear any update on the process from the University, in the same manner as I was called to a meeting to tell me it was more than likely going to happen.

Cadroc

Ginge Young wrote: »

I'll post a little more probably in a while, must have dinner but just to point out 10%? From the last figures I saw I believe there are somewhere in the region of 6k to 7k individual accounts and active memberships within C&S, that's a lot more than 10%.

Those figures are pretty over exaggerated to be fair Ginge. The majority of those accounts are inactive. A lot of the students sign up for the sweets they get. I know personally i joined a lot of clubs and socs, in my first two years but wasn't active.

Ginge Young

Cadroc wrote: »

Those figures are pretty over exaggerated to be fair Ginge. The majority of those accounts are inactive. A lot of the students sign up for the sweets they get. I know personally i joined a lot of clubs and socs, in my first two years but wasn't active.

The way I see it, anyone who pays membership has a say in the money. He said 10% of people used it. I was just confirming that in fact that well over 10% of the students in this University are members of some Club or Society.

I have seen the figures myself, unless I am getting mixed up between the overall ones created and the number of active ones which I don't think I am, there are in and around 5,500 active memberships. I'll find out tomorrow :-)

roro1neil0

stop draggin the thread off topic nobody gives a **** how many people are clubs or socs

Cadroc

roro1neil0 wrote: »

stop draggin the thread off topic nobody gives a **** how many people are clubs or socs

I give a **** actually.



As for the medical centre, I think the Union have let the University take things too far without protesting against the university itself. While I don't mind paying for it myself, some services do need to be free and costs need to be reduced.

2 years ago at questions with Don Barry a question was asked about this very thing. Don asked for a show of hands as to who would be for paying for the medical centre rather than something else being implemented (can't remember the alternative). The Class Reps council, which was pretty packed since we were getting our certs, mostly agreed to it rather than the alternative.

Sorry I can't remember what the alternative scenario given actually was, maybe someone else remembers.

kflynn

All for reform but there was the same amount of anger in the thread about C&S and nothing happened, well it happened again.

Bypass DD, and protest the fees if you like. No point asking for explanation or facts from Derek.

My first campaign for a politician will be for anyone running against dd that's for sure.

reunion

ninty9er wrote: »

It means I was unaware that there was a price list until I saw An Focal.

You seem to be implying/verifying that the communications office kept important information from people for a front page story?

Is it a common theme for the current sabbats to have different information and to withhold information from each other?

When did you find out that the charges were going to be introduced? Why weren't students notified the day you knew that the medical centre was no longer going to be free? Did you (and the rest of the sabbats) decide to wait to tell students via an focal? If you didn't decide to say it via an focal, when were you going to let students know?

ireland2012

In the name of god how did Derek Daly bent over and let the university ride him.

why should there be free health care anyway you go to collage for a education not health care. its very small amounts they are charging as well. Still far less that any other collage or if you went to your GP.

Derek Daly had no power over the decisions, and instead of this consent whining all the time why don't you get elected to the SU and do something about it.

You come across to me as one of these people that are never happy.

roro1neil0

ireland2012 wrote: »

In the name of god how did Derek Daly bent over and let the university ride him.

why should there be free health care anyway you go to collage for a education not health care. its very small amounts they are charging as well. Still far less that any other collage or if you went to your GP.

Derek Daly had no power over the decisions, and instead of this consent whining all the time why don't you get elected to the SU and do something about it.

You come across to me as one of these people that are never happy.

lol Derek Daly's mum has joined boards.ie

I bet DD is revelling in this. he has no intention of answering any of our questions

ireland2012

Well funny but I am not his mother. But i don't believe its his fault, its the university that has the ultimate power. The charges btw are not going to drive anyone into poverty.

roro1neil0

ireland2012 wrote: »

Well funny but I am not his mother. But i don't believe its his fault, its the university that has the ultimate power. The charges btw are not going to drive anyone into poverty.

you miss the point.

The problem isn't DD was steam rolled by the university and they made changes he had no ability to change. The problem is DD did not communicate effectively ANY Of these issues, did not REPRESENT the students and did not CONSULT the students.

Next, it seems some of the sabbatical officers didn't even have the same hymn sheet. entire thing is ridiculous

ireland2012

What did you expect them to do shout it from the library roof.It was in an focal, what would you have done. What is done is done just get over it. lord why to people have to complain all the time

roro1neil0

it was in an focal but after they had already decided...

what I would have done is i would have informed as many people as possible as early as possible so as many people as possible would have a long as possible to come up with an alternative solution.

people are complaining about our elected politician. as we are entitled. your two posts lack any thing positive or relevant, they're just very limp, unfounded and empty defences of derek daly. and you don't even give your name.

ireland2012

So what i don't have to give my name.

Nobody in the SU knew of the level of charge coming in,but it does not matter if they knew in time to give a heads up to the students, Most students dont care at all about the SU, just look at the amount of people that have ever turned up to any of the Meetings.People dont read the emails or any post from the SU.They don't take part or care about the union but expect it to be there when they want it to be, its a case of take take take and contribute nothing.

Its not a empty defence of Derek, to be fair to him you can not blame him or the SU for everything that goes wrong.

Nockz

Ireland2012, I don't think Derek was simply told one day that the charges were coming in. He isn't a messenger boy whose purpose is to tell us what has been told to him(as much as that would help). Instead, he is there to listen to what might happen and then negotiate, as a representative of the student body, a compromise that will benefit the students. He is quite heavily involved in the decision making, as you would expect from someone you elect to make decisions on your behalf (and when the students elect you, that's a lof of people you're arguing for).

I have a great deal of respect in Derek, as I do for many people. It is very disconcerting, however, to hear how he seemingly let us down or missed the opportunity to alert the students. It feels, to me anyway, that he hasn't fought for this.

As for Derek not having known of the figures: Does this mean that he simply didn't know such figures existed (if so, why was this allowed to happen?) or does it mean An Focal were making up fluff for their headliner (if so, why was this allowed to happen?)?

Cossax

ireland2012 wrote: »

So what i don't have to give my name.

Nobody in the SU knew of the level of charge coming in,but it does not matter if they knew in time to give a heads up to the students, Most students dont care at all about the SU, just look at the amount of people that have ever turned up to any of the Meetings.People dont read the emails or any post from the SU.They don't take part or care about the union but expect it to be there when they want it to be, its a case of take take take and contribute nothing.

Its not a empty defence of Derek, to be fair to him you can not blame him or the SU for everything that goes wrong.

Obviously someone did, they wrote an article on it a week before the news broke. It's in the "I'm Sick of TST Getting Stories Out Ahead of Us" paper.

I'd like to make it clear that I have nothing to do with TST other than occasionally reading it.

ninty9er

roro1neil0 wrote: »

it was in an focal but after they had already decided...

Where did anyone get the impression that I knew before that?

I tagged along to a meeting between Tara and the Director if Student Affairs last semester where the charges were one of a number of possibilities, the Director of Finance told me the same thing and that's the last I heard of it until a few weeks ago.

Why didn't the Union tell you?? There was nothing to tell. There was no developed plan, no meat on the bones, I'm not even sure there is as it stands, but in any case, this is the job of the Welfare Officer, something which I engaged with I we ye course of 2 years when I held that role.

Christ, do ye want to know what I had for breakfast?

roro1neil0

ninty9er wrote: »

Where did anyone get the impression that I knew before that?

I tagged along to a meeting between Tara and the Director if Student Affairs last semester where the charges were one of a number of possibilities, the Director of Finance told me the same thing and that's the last I heard of it until a few weeks ago.

Why didn't the Union tell you?? There was nothing to tell. There was no developed plan, no meat on the bones, I'm not even sure there is as it stands, but in any case, this is the job of the Welfare Officer, something which I engaged with I we ye course of 2 years when I held that role.

Christ, do ye want to know what I had for breakfast?

Is this it? Your explanation for this fiasco? Nobody told you? This entire debacle is a sick joke. Adam Moursy and Cathal Ronan will have some up hill struggle trying to undo the harm DD and TF have done to this SU. DD, by his own admission, is completely uninformed on anything relevant from a welfare point of view and TF has shown, as was predicted, that she no skills to deal with any of this.

Derek blames Tara. Tara blames Derek. KOB blames everyone and puts the story on the front page. I wonder where AK stands, she shafted her so call pal Tara (if the story is true).

I honestly can't wait for this crowd of muppets to be gone from this university.

For all those people that said antisoc was a stupid joke and a waste of time I hope you are beginning to realise the need for such an organisation.

ninty9er

roro1neil0 wrote: »

ninty9er wrote: »

Where did anyone get the impression that I knew before that?

I tagged along to a meeting between Tara and the Director if Student Affairs last semester where the charges were one of a number of possibilities, the Director of Finance told me the same thing and that's the last I heard of it until a few weeks ago.

Why didn't the Union tell you?? There was nothing to tell. There was no developed plan, no meat on the bones, I'm not even sure there is as it stands, but in any case, this is the job of the Welfare Officer, something which I engaged with I we ye course of 2 years when I held that role.

Christ, do ye want to know what I had for breakfast?

Is this it? Your explanation for this fiasco? Nobody told you? This entire debacle is a sick joke. Adam Moursy and Cathal Ronan will have some up hill struggle trying to undo the harm DD and TF have done to this SU. DD, by his own admission, is completely uninformed on anything relevant from a welfare point of view and TF has shown, as was predicted, that she no skills to deal with any of this.

Derek blames Tara. Tara blames Derek. KOB blames everyone and puts the story on the front page. I wonder where AK stands, she shafted her so call pal Tara (if the story is true).

I honestly can't wait for this crowd of muppets to be gone from this university.

For all those people that said antisoc was a stupid joke and a waste of time I hope you are beginning to realise the need for such an organisation.

Ah will you calm down and stop wailing like a panicked 4 year old lost in a shopping centre.

Nobody's blaming anyone, because nothing has gone seriously wrong. There's a communications problem on this issue, but nobody's lost a limb.

roro1neil0

No derek. This isn't a once off where the memo got lost and someone forgot to tell someone and then something didn't get done and it's bit of a pickle (e.g. presumably renewing the website) but it will all get sorted in the end.

This is a sign of the inherent, widespread, deep rot that is within the current SU. There is a lack of leadership and cohesion, the different officers seem to have no professional working relationship.

It isn't a once off. This is a continuous occurrence. Information, decisions, ideas come from the top (university) and are supposed to filter through the SU so that the important, relevant and interesting stuff is presented to the students as appropriate.

Derek, go and ask any neutral and ask them to look at how you portray yourself on this forum. They will tell you you are condescending, dismissive and smug. You are condescending because you are deciding for me for you think I should know. You are dismissive because you are ignoring all criticism. You are smug because you know your salary is guaranteed and you're out of this kip in a few weeks.

You're almost as bad as KOB responding to radio criticism. You'd swear you came down in the last shower.

Be assured derek, there are plenty more people that feel the same way about you and the SU but don't take the time to remind you. Don't be so foolish as to think this is just one person with a chip on your shoulder, we are many. we are legion.

UL_heart_throb

ninty9er wrote: »

Ah will you calm down and stop wailing like a panicked 4 year old lost in a shopping centre.

.

If people paid more attention to wailing toddlers in shopping centres james bulger would still be alive.

wnolan1992

roro1neil0 wrote: »

we are many. we are legion.

Mass Effect 2 reference?

CJKeane

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Mass Effect 2 reference?

Think he forgot his medication this morning (or week).

ninty9er

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Derek, go and ask any neutral and ask them to look at how you portray yourself on this forum. They will tell you you are condescending, dismissive and smug. You are condescending because you are deciding for me for you think I should know. You are dismissive because you are ignoring all criticism. You are smug because you know your salary is guaranteed and you're out of this kip in a few weeks.

Be assured derek, there are plenty more people that feel the same way about you and the SU but don't take the time to remind you. Don't be so foolish as to think this is just one person with a chip on your shoulder, we are many. we are legion.

If I come across as smug it's not my intention.

I actually do go out and ask neutrals their opinion, I do it as part of a converted effort every week to take the SU to people.

For the most part they don't particularly care, but where they do have issues they are taken on board and taken to the relevant office.

Those who are so quick to criticise would do well to take a view to how they would do things differently given they don't know, nor do they need go know everything that goes on. It would be a complete waste of time and energy to correspond every meeting that takes place.

The issue at hand is people's view on the potential effects of health centre charges. Tara and I had that conversation with Student Affairs months ago, I had it with Student affairs last year and the year before, Catriona had it the year before and maybe Judith even had it the year before.

The premise of attack is that this conversation was not had, in which case the attack is invalidated. Now go find yourself a new conspiracy theory to waste your grey matter on.

roro1neil0

CJKeane wrote: »

Think he forgot his medication this morning (or week).

look at this, one of kob's friends making crude and inflammatory statements about other people's mental health again. it would be unwise for someone as identifiable as yourself to do this as this is against university policy.

roro1neil0

ninty9er wrote: »

If I come across as smug it's not my intention.

Well at least we know you aimed to come across as condescending and dismissive.

I actually do go out and ask neutrals their opinion, I do it as part of a converted effort every week to take the SU to people.

Concerted.

For the most part they don't particularly care, but where they do have issues they are taken on board and taken to the relevant office.

Of course the majority of people don't care because the majority of people get on with life and don't worry about the SU does and doesn't do. It doesn't mean they shouldn't care, or that their indifference is justified.

Those who are so quick to criticise would do well to take a view to how they would do things differently given they don't know, nor do they need go know everything that goes on. It would be a complete waste of time and energy to correspond every meeting that takes place.

That was what I said, you need to decide what is pertinent to the student body. I don't give a rashers what is said at 99% of the ****ty meetings you go to but I do care when someone tables a motion to slash health centre funding.

The issue at hand is people's view on the potential effects of health centre charges. Tara and I had that conversation with Student Affairs months ago, I had it with Student affairs last year and the year before, Catriona had it the year before and maybe Judith even had it the year before.

Well it's good to know you chat about stuff. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: What was with the knee jerk survey reaction if this thing that been spoken about for months. Why weren't you sending out feelers to the students before xmas asking them what they felt about potential closure/changes/charges in the health centre.

The premise of attack is that this conversation was not had, in which case the attack is invalidated. Now go find yourself a new conspiracy theory to waste your grey matter on.

if this is your attempt at a QED you're more deluded than me. I am running out of steam addressing your half-arsed ****e on this forum.

wnolan1992

ninty9er wrote: »

The premise of attack is that this conversation was not had, in which case the attack is invalidated. Now go find yourself a new conspiracy theory to waste your grey matter on.

Derek, in all fairness, if this conversation was had, then why was an all student email sent out on Wednesday asking for student feedback on the issue in order to organise a campaign?

I'm not doubting that you and Tara had meetings with the relevant Uni boards on the issue, but there was no communication with the student body on this issue.

You've said you knew that charges were coming in weeks ago. Why did you not then raise the issue, either via an email, your blog, the SU Facebook, on boards, on ULFM, etc, etc and try and get a conversation going?

You could have asked how much people would be willing to pay for each service, and then lobby the Uni with these figures to try and get a better deal, because let's face it, charging for STI checks and contraceptive consultations is a retrograde action in the campaign to promote sexual health on campus.

Instead, the information was not released. It was kept until the Uni decided on its own charges scale. And then it was decided that maybe it'd be a good idea to get some student feedback? Any campaign that could have been organised would be pointless given that it was week 11 (now week 12) and frankly, the student body has more pressing concerns than trying to give input into a debate which comes across as already being settled.

So the situation now is, the Uni has come up with a charge structure with no student input, you're leaving in June so any rapport you've built with the relevant authorities over the past 3 years is gone, and then Adam and Cathal will come in, and naturally there'll be a bedding in period where this issue will take a back seat over the more pressing issue of balancing the SU budget, and then it's September, and these charges are in place.

/rant.

Peteee

bentoverhard, banned for personal abuse.

I know this is a controversial topic but can we please keep it civil. Theres no need for abuse.

Adam_M

wnolan1992 wrote: »

So the situation now is, the Uni has come up with a charge structure with no student input, you're leaving in June so any rapport you've built with the relevant authorities over the past 3 years is gone, and then Adam and Cathal will come in, and naturally there'll be a bedding in period where this issue will take a back seat over the more pressing issue of balancing the SU budget, and then it's September, and these charges are in place.

There’ll be no bedding in period. We have a 2 week (9 days realistically) handover period. After that it will be all up to us. I won’t be naive and think that everything will fall into place and that it will be smooth sailing. The nature of our respective roles means that we cannot rest over the Summer.

With regards to the current issue, when we take up our office, we will establish what its current standing is, as to whether a decision is set in stone or whether it is still just a possibility (I’ve yet to see conclusive comments to prove one way or the other). From there, we will decide on an appropriate action. However, the students of UL have my word that this is not a foregone conclusion. If the University are willing to discuss the actual implementation then we will start there. If they will not budge on the fact it is being implemented, then we will attempt to renegotiate the charges.

This issue will not take a back seat, in the grand scheme of what affects students, it is a major issue.

ninty9er

wnolan1992 wrote: »

You've said you knew that charges were coming in weeks ago. Why did you not then raise the issue, either via an email, your blog, the SU Facebook, on boards, on ULFM, etc, etc and try and get a conversation going?

You could have asked how much people would be willing to pay for each service, and then lobby the Uni with these figures to try and get a better deal, because let's face it, charging for STI checks and contraceptive consultations is a retrograde action in the campaign to promote sexual health on campus.

So the situation now is, the Uni has come up with a charge structure with no student input, you're leaving in June so any rapport you've built with the relevant authorities over the past 3 years is gone, and then Adam and Cathal will come in, and naturally there'll be a bedding in period where this issue will take a back seat over the more pressing issue of balancing the SU budget, and then it's September, and these charges are in place.

I did not say I knew weeks ago. I was called to a meeting on a Wednesday afternoon, at 5pm (I know I said a Friday, I've just checked and it was a Wednesday), under the impression I was getting good news (which I did), then this issue was also raised. When I got back to the office I went to/called each officer and asked them to come to my office at 5:30 when they were told what I had been told.

The reason I did not believe, in my political judgment, as a student representative that the issue was so far progressed was that there was no clear indication it was the decided action. Besides that I'm still not convinced, as until the Director of Student Affairs was contacted to comment on the story, the staff in the Health Centre were unaware. This is the reason for the delay in the online version.

In terms of framing and balancing an SU budget, a huge part of my year has been to ensure that this is not the function of sabbats, so apart from seeing a plan for a balanced budget, incoming sabbats will not have to concern themselves with that. It's a staff function and not one that has reasonable cause to distract officers from representative issues. Getting off topic it is also a factor in why we no longer have non-representative officers.