Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

  • 19-01-2011 8:59pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭


    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?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,500 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,756 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,756 ✭✭✭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...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,756 ✭✭✭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...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    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".


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 153 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,278 ✭✭✭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


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭Aodan83


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 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).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭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? :confused: 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭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.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,278 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,881 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


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

    NOW who sounds like Cowen? ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    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.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 137 ✭✭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.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    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.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Byron85 wrote: »
    It's a reaction to you. I'm allergic to bull**** you see.

    obvioustroll.jpg

    Nice try, though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    obvioustroll.jpg

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,278 ✭✭✭x43r0


    I really don't have any faith in anything productive coming from this thread. If anyone here has serious concerns and wants to get some kind of satisfaction from arguing their points then the only effective way is for all parties concerned to sit down and talk face to face. You would get more said and done in 10 minutes than 10 days online.


    Or keep virtual wankfest going on here


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Byron85 wrote: »
    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;

    Oh lordy. Try reading your own posts sometime and you might see that you're very much inside a glass house, stockpiling stones.
    Byron85 wrote:
    you asked Pi^2 to provide a list of his expenses and his contribution to the S.U's finances.

    Yes, because he asked the SU to calculate what savings they make for him versus what they spend doing so. If you've got a better way to calculate it, do tell.
    x43ro wrote:
    I really don't have any faith in anything productive coming from this thread.

    You and me both, brother…


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    Oh lordy. Try reading your own posts sometime and you might see that you're very much inside a glass house, stockpiling stones.



    Yes, because he asked the SU to calculate what savings they make for him versus what they spend doing so. If you've got a better way to calculate it, do tell.



    You and me both, brother…

    I must say, you more than live up to your reputation. If you can't deal with the criticisms and questions in a proper manner then I suggest you don't post here as you're just doing the S.U a disservice.

    Other than that, i'll leave you to it.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Byron85 wrote: »
    I must say, you more than live up to your reputation. If you can't deal with the criticisms and questions in a proper manner then I suggest you don't post here as you're just doing the S.U a disservice.

    Good to know I've successfully garnered a reputation, must cross that off the To-Do list. For the record, in my own opinion I've dealt just fine with the criticisms and questions; the criticisms don't really apply to me as I'm not a current SU officer, and I've given whatever answers I can to the questions that are posed. To be perfectly honest, if anyone here seems to be inclined towards sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "LALALA" when exception is taken to their dogmatic anti-SU ranting, it might well be yourself. But hey, think what you will of me, you'll find that I don't particularly mind ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    They're hardly mutually exclusive.

    Erm, yes they are. College funding is being reduced, and the SU is actively campaigning for more of that limited funding to be allocated to SU activities instead of education. Money is finite.
    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.

    Association fallacy. You're trying to associate me with Youth Defence to weaken my position. That doesn't work.

    Anyway, as Byron said, we just want to be consulted. It's our union, and our money. People interested in the SU, like yourself, can claim that it's in the best interest of the student body however, firstly, you are extremely biased - it's something you believe in so you're obviously going to feel it should get lots of money - and secondly, it's everyone's union, not just that of a couple of hundred people who are involved.

    As far as I can see, there's no argument against having a referendum. The only reason I can see why you'd be against it is if you're afraid the general student population will put an end to your (expensive) pet project.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭Byron85


    Good to know I've successfully garnered a reputation, must cross that off the To-Do list. For the record, in my own opinion I've dealt just fine with the criticisms and questions; the criticisms don't really apply to me as I'm not a current SU officer, and I've given whatever answers I can to the questions that are posed. To be perfectly honest, if anyone here seems to be inclined towards sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "LALALA" when exception is taken to their dogmatic anti-SU ranting, it might well be yourself. But hey, think what you will of me, you'll find that I don't particularly mind ;)

    I'm not anti-S.U. I just think they have delusions of grandeur and as a result over-extend themselves. More needs to be done to get more students voting in the elections. Everyone I talk to has issues with the S.U and the way it's run. In this case, it's the issue of the money.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Erm, yes they are. College funding is being reduced, and the SU is actively campaigning for more of that limited funding to be allocated to SU activities instead of education. Money is finite.

    Money certainly is finite. However, if SU activities support those who are receiving education, then the money is still being used to the benefit of the students' education. So I'm still inclined to disagree that they're mutually exclusive, although I can certainly see where you're coming from.
    You're trying to associate me with Youth Defence to weaken my position.

    Wasn't my intention, apologies if you thought it was. I've no idea what your stance on abortion is and for the purposes of this conversation it's irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that it was another campaign that would have resulted in less support for students in the name of "saving money".
    As far as I can see, there's no argument against having a referendum. The only reason I can see why you'd be against it is if you're afraid the general student population will put an end to your (expensive) pet project.

    I'm not against a referendum per se, I just don't like the accusations that the students weren't consulted when they were – through a referendum, as it happens. The new sabbatical has existed in potentia since that referendum passed and certain people (not me, admittedly) have been gearing themselves towards serving the student body in that position since then. I don't particularly want them to have to wait another year to run for that position because the referendum, that was already passed, had to be held again.
    Byron85 wrote:
    I'm not anti-S.U. I just think they have delusions of grandeur and as a result over-extend themselves. More needs to be done to get more students voting in the elections. Everyone I talk to has issues with the S.U and the way it's run.

    Looks like we're finding common ground, based on that post. I apologise for accusing you of being entirely anti-SU, then. But can we at least agree not to throw the baby out with the bathwater?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    Ah, student politics....
    obvioustroll.jpg

    Nice try, though.

    If you've a problem with a post, report it. Don't accuse other users of trolling.

    And a general note to everyone: Debate is welcome on this forum, so long as everyone maintains a level of civility. So argue away to your hearts content but don't let tempers flare up here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    I know this isn't directly linked to the thread title, but thought Id thrown in my two cents about UCCSU.

    I used to be very involved in UCDSU and since I moved down to study in UCC I can't get over the difference between the two.

    There is zero presence of the Student Union on campus.I wouldn't even have a clue where their offices are or anything! The only posters I have seen since September are the ones for the November protest, which was advertised incredibly poorly and only a day before the event. Also theres been no follow up on this one demo,what about doing information stalls in different facultys to ensure students make it an election issue...yet there seems to be nothing.

    Should the SU not be running events,posters campaigns, meetings etc on all issues affecting students? In UCD the SU ran big awareness campaigns every week. From disability awareness to career seminars to eating disorder campaigns to finance advice. I've not seen one thing advertised by the SU the whole year?

    It seems like everything is left down to individual society's, which have little to no funding. Like shouldn't it be the Welfare officer running the mental health campaign over the next few weeks and not a small society such as the Slainte society?

    And while it maybe an issue for another day the societys guild is a joke , rejecting student initiatives such as Mind Matters and the Pro choice society. Universities should be awash with posters, leaflets and people teeming with idea's and opinions, but the stringent poster regulations means there's no room for anything except the same UCC ents, hardybucks vs Rubberbandits, posters that have been up all year.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,278 ✭✭✭x43r0


    panda100 wrote: »
    And while it maybe an issue for another day the societys guild is a joke , rejecting student initiatives such as Mind Matters and the Pro choice society.

    I'm a patient person but this is the kind of shít that bothers me. Mind Matters never made an application to be a society so was never rejected.

    The Pro-Choice Vs Students for Life thing could have a book written about it and I'm sick of the whole issue so you'll excuse me for not discussing it at length because frankly its dead and buried at this stage.

    If these two particular issues really bother you then email any one of these people if you want to find out more. Remember how we did things in the old days? If we had a question we would talk to those qualified to answer it, not leave the question in public and invite uninformed speculation and retarded guessing

    I'm sure they'd only love to discuss your concerns and tbh you'd get a far more conclusive answer than you would by moaning on fúcking boards.ie


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9 Biffman


    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?

    facepalm_implied.jpg

    This refers to the start of this thread, I don't have time to read it all.

    If you're gonna complain about an article, please read the thing first. We didn't have to cover this as a story, 90% of students won't care. I made it clear in the first paragraph the funding was coming from the university, and investigated why this position was explored and the possible problems associated with it. For the 5 millionth ****ing time, the SU fund the media, and that is it. Not once has anyone at the SU asked us not to run with a story or asked us to change something.

    I hate forum boards, because ignorance seems to be acceptable when it's anonymous.

    Sapere Aude, mother****ers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    And a general note to everyone: Debate is welcome on this forum, so long as everyone maintains a level of civility. So argue away to your hearts content but don't let tempers flare up here.

    ......
    x43r0 wrote: »
    I'm sure they'd only love to discuss your concerns and tbh you'd get a far more conclusive answer than you would by moaning on fúcking boards.ie
    Biffman wrote: »
    facepalm_implied.jpg

    ......

    I hate forum boards, because ignorance seems to be acceptable when it's anonymous.

    Sapere Aude, mother****ers.

    *sigh*

    Evidently, trusting people to have a mature student-politics debate without simply resorting to swearing at people and using clichéed memes rather than actual discussion was a mistake.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Biffman wrote: »
    If you're gonna complain about an article, please read the thing first.

    I think it's quite obvious from my OP that I did read it, so I don't know why you said that.
    Biffman wrote: »
    For the 5 millionth ****ing time, the SU fund the media, and that is it.

    Any clued-in consumer of media will make themselves aware of possible or existent biases in the media they are engaged with. When I read The Guardian I am aware that it has a Liberal Democrats/social democratic bias and that this will colour its portrayal of events and its commentary (even its book reviews!). I know The Irish Examiner has a pro-Labour slant, so that when they lead their budget coverage with "In an attack on the vulnerable..." I know it doesn't necessarily mean the budget will put people below the breadline - it just means the Examiner's pro-Labour sympathies will have been set off.

    When I'm watching coverage on RTE News I'm acutely aware that the station has a history of FF bias, and that the station is funded by a FF government.

    One can never fully trust the way in which a media outlet deals with those that fund it. RTE is an example, as is most of the television media in Italy. This is especially true in small environments - like universities - where those running the media will be very familiar - even friends - with those political people they are reporting on.

    By being so sceptical I'm just doing what every consumer of media should be doing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9 Biffman


    Then why did you imply I said the funding was coming from students? First paragraph I made it explicitly clear it was university funded.

    Absolutely, and I'm sure the Express does have certain biases. We're students for example, so our coverage is always gonna have a students-first slant. We try our best to be objective however and possibly as a result have had not one complaint all year. Not bad going, if I do say so myself.

    However the implication that we gave this story reasonably small presence in the news section because the SU don't want people to know is offensive to someone who actually enjoys working in journalism. We gave it a small presence because by and large, noone cares.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    x43r0 wrote: »

    The Pro-Choice Vs Students for Life thing could have a book written about it and I'm sick of the whole issue so you'll excuse me for not discussing it at length because frankly its dead and buried at this stage.

    Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Two society's on a topical issue that students want to be actively and involved with but are banned from doing so as 'its dead and buried at this stage'.

    There just seems to be no encouragement from the SU to discuss or get involved with issues that are important to students. Isn't that the whole point of college? To use your initiative and get active on issues that your learning about, be that gender Inequality or Mental health?

    My point is that this should be about quality not quantity. The quality of the SU seems dire at the moment, and their presence on campus non-existent. I seriously doubt bringing in another full-time officer will change this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Biffman wrote: »
    Then why did you imply I said the funding was coming from students? First paragraph I made it explicitly clear it was university funded.

    Because the students fund the university! Or, because, if not put into the SU, that money could be put into student teaching services. Either way, it's costing the students. The university doesn't have a money tree, at least since the Celtic Tiger trod on it in his death throes.
    Biffman wrote: »
    However the implication that we gave this story reasonably small presence in the news section because the SU don't want people to know is offensive to someone who actually enjoys working in journalism. We gave it a small presence because by and large, noone cares.

    Point taken.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    panda100 wrote: »
    Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Two society's on a topical issue that students want to be actively and involved with but are banned from doing so as 'its dead and buried at this stage'...

    panda100, why are you bringing all this up? This has nothing to do with the 5th officer. One of the standard charges brought by the SU against people who criticise it is that they are merely "haters": that they're universally against everything the SU does. By going on such a broad attack on the SU in a thread that was started to discuss as single policy, you're only feeding that partisan notion, and, in my opinion, reducing the credibility of people like myself who just want a referendum on this one specific issue.

    One of the biggest problems I see in student politics discourse generally is this partisan "haters vs hacks" perception. It allows extremes on both sides to ignore others, leaving people who are genuinely interested in hearing criticism and engaging with the process drowned out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,278 ✭✭✭x43r0


    panda100 wrote: »
    Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Two society's on a topical issue that students want to be actively and involved with but are banned from doing so as 'its dead and buried at this stage'.

    No one is banned from discussing the topic or raising awareness of either side of the argument. All I'm saying is that i'm personally sick of talking about it and that neither side will get a society dedicated to their argument. Its nonsensical to base an entire society around a debate.



    Just to clear it up in case someone thought otherwise, The Societies Guild is not a branch of the SU. It runs on its own constitution and does not not report/answer to the SU. The level above the Guild is the office of the VP for the student experience.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 137 ✭✭Pi^2


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Biffman viewpost.gif
    However the implication that we gave this story reasonably small presence in the news section because the SU don't want people to know is offensive to someone who actually enjoys working in journalism. We gave it a small presence because by and large, noone cares.

    Point taken.

    I think the Express should revise what they think we care about. In fairness, everyone in UCC is well educated and whether we admit it or not we care about the college. Sure, it might be a subconcious feeling that only surfaces when there is a threat of reg fees going up or on graduation day when it dawns on us that we won't be coming back. But we care, and it would be nice to know what is going on from time to time. So, you can keep feeding us drivel in the student paper or challenge us with something stimulating. But I guess the fact that ye printed the article at all is something. Bravo.

    Also, if you look at it the right way, I'm sure there is some truth in this - "the implication that we gave this story reasonably small presence in the news section because the SU don't want people to know". Firstly there is a difference between not wanting someone to know something, and wanting someone to not know something. In the former you don't actively pursue spreading the information. In the latter you actively suppress the information getting out. Obviously Rosewater was hinting that the SU (who are normally very ostentatious about their great work) weren't exactly eager to let everyone know what they were planning. The Express played their part by not probing deeper and by not giving the piece the coverage it deserved. That's not journalism.

    Oh and as Rosewater says, just because the college say they're paying for it doesn't mean the students aren't paying indirectly. In fact, it simply means the students are paying. End of story.
    panda100, why are you bringing all this up? This has nothing to do with the 5th officer.

    In panda100's defence, if one takes a holistic view of this discussion, his points are valid albeit slightly poorly delivered (no offence). I.e. If the SU are perceived in a negative light by the student body then what does it matter if they bring in another sabbatical officer? The level of disconnection between the students and those "representing" them is so tremendous that it truly is irrelevant what the SU do.



    My question is when will the 6th Officer come in? Or the 7th? etc. And will anybody do anything to stop that? I wish they'd surprise me and actually cut it back to 3. You can claim they're understaffed all you want, but ask yourself how did they manage every other year? It's not like the number of students has increased dramatically. It comes back to what Byron85 said and the fact that they over-extend themselves. And for what? For whom? For the laugh, for themselves.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement