ULSU EGM

reunion · 03-02-2012 1:45am

I don't believe what I'm hearing.

Are people serious in saying that the su can spend what they like and c&s should suffer?

The c&s stick to a budget and have rarely gone over. If anything hand the money to c&s and let sabbats fight evenly for it. Not assume c&s will take the 100k operating hit for no reason.

Truth of it all su (excluding c&s) spends 100k more than they have. They need to cut that. simple

cambridge · 03-02-2012 1:53am

reunion wrote: »

I don't believe what I'm hearing.

You're not actually listening.

Are people serious in saying that the su can spend what they like and c&s should suffer?

no, no one said that. Nobody said anything like that, similar to that, or of that nature. The SU will be cutting its expenditure by large amounts.

The c&s stick to a budget and have rarely gone over.

I've already established their budget is already too generous. They can't go over budget because they have no means to do so. There operational model is completely different to the SU.

If anything hand the money to c&s and let sabbats fight evenly for it. Not assume c&s will take the 100k operating hit for no reason.

You sound like the guy in the red hoody at the SU meeting, didn't have a clue, made a lot of noise, and contradicted himself many times. Nothing you say makes sense.

Truth of it all su (excluding c&s) spends 100k more than they have. They need to cut that. simple

The question isn't the what, the question is the how. If you don't understand the argument being discussed perhaps you should listen more and pontificate less.

At the EGM i noticed there were a couple of people with very little knowledge trying to sound important, you remind me of one of them.

Jester252 · 03-02-2012 2:40am

Well 2 position were cut saving around 40,000-50,000 a year. How about cutting the paper edition of an focal that 2,000 per edition. Celler door can go. Is M&M needed? And hell going by wnolan logic ULFM dropped and the equipment sold.

reunion · 03-02-2012 2:42am

cambridge wrote: »

reunion wrote: »

I don't believe what I'm hearing.

You're not actually listening.

Are people serious in saying that the su can spend what they like and c&s should suffer?

no, no one said that. Nobody said anything like that, similar to that, or of that nature. The SU will be cutting its expenditure by large amounts.

The c&s stick to a budget and have rarely gone over.

I've already established their budget is already too generous. They can't go over budget because they have no means to do so. There operational model is completely different to the SU.

If anything hand the money to c&s and let sabbats fight evenly for it. Not assume c&s will take the 100k operating hit for no reason.

You sound like the guy in the red hoody at the SU meeting, didn't have a clue, made a lot of noise, and contradicted himself many times. Nothing you say makes sense.

Truth of it all su (excluding c&s) spends 100k more than they have. They need to cut that. simple

The question isn't the what, the question is the how. If you don't understand the argument being discussed perhaps you should listen more and pontificate less.

At the EGM i noticed there were a couple of people with very little knowledge trying to sound important, you remind me of one of them.

You sound like a guy with a beard and glasses in the back row.

I honestly (and no one) cares for your clueless claims. The su needs to cut operating expenditure. The su cannot and should not be facilitated by increasing capitation or by diverting c&s money. As students we cant say spend what you like. Currently the su is obliged by the college to give 2/3 to c&s. The su can't live with its 1/3 due to careless spending amongst other things. The budget (for c&s) is generous however it could be worse or better depending on your view. If you compare it to the su budget, we are better administered and as such can operate within a budget. The su cant. The su needs to fix this before any rational thinking can take place about using c&s money

cambridge · 03-02-2012 2:58am

reunion wrote: »

You sound like a guy with a beard and glasses in the back row.

You're wrong there buddy. Like a lot of your claims, you take one iota of evidence and make massive assumptions which turn out to be wrong.

I honestly (and no one) cares for your clueless claims.

In which capacity are you making that claim? You're not an elected representative of the students are you? are you even a class rep. you speak for nobody except the deluded and the ill informed.

The su needs to cut operating expenditure.

No **** sherlock.

The su cannot and should not be facilitated by increasing capitation or by diverting c&s money.

Would you mind, at least when you're speaking to me, to carefully select the words and only use words you've looked up in the dictionary, you rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired. The SU could be facilitated by increasing the amount of capitation monies it receives. The SU could be facilitated by diverting some of the C&S money back into it. In what context? When it's in the best interests of the students. C&S can't hold the students to ransom because they feel they're entitled to certain monies from the capitation fee. They are given this money in good faith that it will be used to better the student experience. Any reasonable person would understand that if it is in the students best interests to divert money from c&S into SU that should happen. Anyone that disagrees with that is just dogmatic.

As students we cant say spend what you like.

Seriously, are you actually a post-grad? Did you not have to write a thesis at some point? Can you not form better sentences?

I'm not going to argue with your silly little points. These are the actual facts:

The SU is in a lot of debt.
The previous way of doing things caused the SU to acquire debts.
New methods need to be envisioned to deal with this.
One method that has to be considered is how capitation monies are distributed between the SU and C&S

Both SU and C&S have to reduce expenditure (the su more so).

There is no disputing this.

reunion · 03-02-2012 3:13am

cambridge wrote: »

reunion wrote: »

You sound like a guy with a beard and glasses in the back row.

You're wrong there buddy. Like a lot of your claims, you take one iota of evidence and make massive assumptions which turn out to be wrong.

I honestly (and no one) cares for your clueless claims.

In which capacity are you making that claim? You're not an elected representative of the students are you? are you even a class rep. you speak for nobody except the deluded and the ill informed.

The su needs to cut operating expenditure.

No **** sherlock.

The su cannot and should not be facilitated by increasing capitation or by diverting c&s money.

Would you mind, at least when you're speaking to me, to carefully select the words and only use words you've looked up in the dictionary, you rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired. The SU could be facilitated by increasing the amount of capitation monies it receives. The SU could be facilitated by diverting some of the C&S money back into it. In what context? When it's in the best interests of the students. C&S can't hold the students to ransom because they feel they're entitled to certain monies from the capitation fee. They are given this money in good faith that it will be used to better the student experience. Any reasonable person would understand that if it is in the students best interests to divert money from c&S into SU that should happen. Anyone that disagrees with that is just dogmatic.

As students we cant say spend what you like.

Seriously, are you actually a post-grad? Did you not have to write a thesis at some point? Can you not form better sentences?

I'm not going to argue with your silly little points. These are the actual facts:

The SU is in a lot of debt.
The previous way of doing things caused the SU to acquire debts.
New methods need to be envisioned to deal with this.
One method that has to be considered is how capitation monies are distributed between the SU and C&S

Both SU and C&S have to reduce expenditure (the su more so).

There is no disputing this.

Incorrect your trolling implies c&s are somehow reaponsible. They aren't. Su should try to stick to their current budget not attempt to stick to a future unconfirmed budget.

Jester252 · 03-02-2012 3:15am

It would be to much effort to change it any way

cambridge · 03-02-2012 11:09am

Has anyone heard anything from Finn mcDuffie or any of the previous sabbatical officers opinion on this? I know they're no longer accountable and can just tell everyone to pfo but can someone get in touch and see if they can get a statement?

were they aware of the impending financial doom?
what did they do about it?
why didn't they tell Derek Daly about it?

reunion · 03-02-2012 11:31am

cambridge wrote: »

Has anyone heard anything from Finn mcDuffie or any of the previous sabbatical officers opinion on this? I know they're no longer accountable and can just tell everyone to pfo but can someone get in touch and see if they can get a statement?

were they aware of the impending financial doom?
what did they do about it?
why didn't they tell Derek Daly about it?

SU exec are accountable for their actions for up to 7 years. Getting a ~100k imbalance in the budget isn't something that happened in 1 year, it was probably a factor of numerous things building up over the years.

I have heard that 15 years ago something similar like this happened to the su. So I imagine the shop has been balancing the su's books for years, probably since the shop opened.

wnolan1992 · 03-02-2012 5:36pm

reunion, Jester, I'm not suggesting that the capitation split be reviewed lightly. I'm not suggesting that the SU can continue to spend what it wants.

As it is, the SU is in debt to the tune of 325,000EUR. Part of the SU's expenditure every year is to pay off this debt. If the capitation, which is currently split 66:33 was changed to 50:50 for example, it would help the SU to pay off this debt quicker, thus reducing their overall expenditure without majorly affecting the services provided. And then, when the budget returns to normal, we return to the current arrangement, and implement stricter control over SU finances so that this doesn't happen again.

And as I said earlier, I don't envision a reallocation of the capitation as the solution to this mess, I see it as being part of the solution.

Let's be realistic here. >2/3 of the students use C&S. If anyone can contradict that with figures I'll happily admit I'm wrong. So why jeopardise the services provided by union such as the shop, the building open until 11, etc, etc, with this stubborn attitude? I'd only be repeating myself if I continued here, I think I made a pretty reasonable argument in my previous posts.

Also, to respond to Jester's comments about An Focal, etc. I agree, reduce An Focal's print run or decrease to an edition every three weeks and move more to anfocal.ie which has proved a far better service.
I believe Cellar Door is gone. At least that's the impression I got from the EGM.
And I can't be impartial about ULFM so I won't say anything.

reunion · 03-02-2012 6:39pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

reunion, Jester, I'm not suggesting that the capitation split be reviewed lightly. I'm not suggesting that the SU can continue to spend what it wants.

So they must cut expenditure (or raise income, cutting expenditure is easier)).

wnolan1992 wrote: »

As it is, the SU is in debt to the tune of 325,000EUR. Part of the SU's expenditure every year is to pay off this debt. If the capitation, which is currently split 66:33 was changed to 50:50 for example, it would help the SU to pay off this debt quicker, thus reducing their overall expenditure without majorly affecting the services provided. And then, when the budget returns to normal, we return to the current arrangement, and implement stricter control over SU finances so that this doesn't happen again.

They can't pay back the loan instantly, they still would make monthly installments. Also I'd rather they implemented stricter controls first (as the SU nearly went bankrupt before) instead of the SU continuing to operate with ~€100k loss a year.

wnolan1992 wrote: »

And as I said earlier, I don't envision a reallocation of the capitation as the solution to this mess, I see it as being part of the solution.

As I stated previously, the SU is obliged to give 2/3rds to c&s. The c&s working group would be the people to talk to about specifics.

C&S are NOT part of the solution to save the SU. C&S should be the last avenue to explore when every other solution is unviable. Currently stricter budget control is the most effictive method of keeping the SU within it's budget.

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Let's be realistic here. >2/3 of the students use C&S. If anyone can contradict that with figures I'll happily admit I'm wrong. So why jeopardise the services provided by union such as the shop, the building open until 11, etc, etc, with this stubborn attitude? I'd only be repeating myself if I continued here, I think I made a pretty reasonable argument in my previous posts.

do you mean greater than 2/3rds or less than? Either case, why jeopardise years of works in constitutions, council meetings and 2 paid employees when the 2 paid employees, councils and constitutions are the most functioning body in the SU. C&S have operated within their budget, made provisions for legal reserves, buying vechicles, etc. The SU became reliant on shop profits and that's why we are in this mess; don't let them become reliant on taking C&S money. If that happens not only would the shop, etc be in trouble but so would every club and society.

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Also, to respond to Jester's comments about An Focal, etc. I agree, reduce An Focal's print run or decrease to an edition every three weeks and move more to anfocal.ie which has proved a far better service.
I believe Cellar Door is gone. At least that's the impression I got from the EGM.
And I can't be impartial about ULFM so I won't say anything.

every 3 weeks just makes sense. I'd say with an online site, people would be more willing to pay for sponsorship as you can give exact readership figures (also google ads will always be an option to give a guaranteed minimum income).

Cellar Door is gone as far as I know.

Reiver · 03-02-2012 7:24pm

cambridge wrote: »

Y
No it's not. It's like reducing expenditure to the Arts council and the Sports council when the country is bank rupt. Don't make ridiculous comparisons to cover up the fact you don't have a strong argument.

I'd doubt even 2000 people participate in a C&S per year. It's the same groups of people creaming off the top. It's a massive expense, one the university can no longer afford.

Seems to me more like the USA attempting to prop up the South Vietnamese regime, we all know how that turned out. Slogging through paddy fields and canopy jungle back in '68 against Charlie just delayed it.

Flippancy aside, C and S works. They aren't responsible for this for this and they've proven they can well work within a budget. They don't deserve to be punished for this. Its a stopgap measure. WHat happens when the SU runs into debt again, we grab some more C and S money again?

Just on the note of reducing An Focal print copies, I#ve helped deliver An Focal in the past. The amount of them seems off the wall, I mean even covering the Schrodinger, KBS, ERB, Millstream buildings, IWA, Health Sciences, Arena, Pess, Schuman, several places in the main building, theres sitll a huge surplus left over. I mean you see copies of issues still lying around three or four weeks after they were initially distributed. It coould be a considerable saving over the year like!

wnolan1992 · 03-02-2012 7:48pm

reunion wrote: »

So they must cut expenditure (or raise income, cutting expenditure is easier)).

They can't pay back the loan instantly, they still would make monthly installments. Also I'd rather they implemented stricter controls first (as the SU nearly went bankrupt before) instead of the SU continuing to operate with ~€100k loss a year.

As I stated previously, the SU is obliged to give 2/3rds to c&s. The c&s working group would be the people to talk to about specifics.

C&S are NOT part of the solution to save the SU. C&S should be the last avenue to explore when every other solution is unviable. Currently stricter budget control is the most effictive method of keeping the SU within it's budget.

do you mean greater than 2/3rds or less than? Either case, why jeopardise years of works in constitutions, council meetings and 2 paid employees when the 2 paid employees, councils and constitutions are the most functioning body in the SU. C&S have operated within their budget, made provisions for legal reserves, buying vechicles, etc. The SU became reliant on shop profits and that's why we are in this mess; don't let them become reliant on taking C&S money. If that happens not only would the shop, etc be in trouble but so would every club and society.

I meant less than 2/3. I also phrased my post badly, I did mean that measures should be taken immediately to tighten up the expenditure as you outlined.

I'm not saying, nor have I ever said (read my older posts) that it's acceptable for the SU to continue spending the amount it is. But, the debt has to be paid off, and if C&S money could speed this process along, then I think it should be welcomed.

You say it should be a last resort? Well what do you mean by that? Should the capitation split be reviewed before or after they start closing the SU shop and building at 7pm? Before or after they start to let staff go?

If the capitation split was reviewed as part of this in the short term, it could help pay off the debt quicker, then it would relieve pressure on the expenditure cuts needed.

Let's say, for arguments sake, that for the next five years, an extra ten thousand euro of the capitation went to the SU. This would be ten thousand a year that wouldn't have to be cut from the budgets of services like the NiteLink, SU staying open until 11 etc, while still allowing time for initiatives to increase revenue from the shop, and decreasing expenditure in more measured thought out ways.

Look what happened during the week. Two sabbatical positions gone, with little or no planning as to how the services provided by these offices are to be divvied out. All in the name of saving money.

And I know. I know. C&S didn't cause this situation. But the majority of people in the public and private sectors didn't cause the mess the country's in, but they're taking pay cuts. It's unfair, yes. But it's necessary.

freyners · 03-02-2012 8:11pm

look im not going to comment on the pros or cons of a re weighting of the capitation to help pay off the debt. Im far too involved with a club to be objective

the only thing i can point out is that C&S represent and are used by a far great proportion of the students that some of the services the SU currently provide (and before anyone asks, im not referring to ULFM, its still too early to judge it). I would prefer to see those being looked at first

Delta Kilo · 03-02-2012 9:06pm

I too am involved in clubs and socs but to be honest, I really do see both sides of the argument and support the idea that it should be looked at.

Its clear the SU is in dire financial circumstances and yes C&S have nothing got to do with that however, people must also look at the bigger picture. If the SU make more cuts then core services are going to be affected. Furthermore, staff cuts will be inevitable and that is a huge problem. Morale will be down and it will create a very dire atmosphere within the SU if that happens.

Meanwhile you are going to have clubs travelling abroad on development trips at hugely discounted rates for members and purchasing equipment worth thousands of euro annually. (Now I know there is lots of fundraising and C&S finances are impeccably managed so dont hang me) This will cause a major divide within the SU. I think it could be worth balancing things out for a year or two and then progress together, ONLY IF there are assurances and protocols devised to ensure a similar situation cannot arise in future.

I see the argument that more people use C&S instead of say, the nitelink. However what happens if the nitelink is cancelled and someone who normally uses the nitelink gets raped walking home in the dark? What price do you put on that? What if staff in the SU get laid off and subsequently cant support their own family? Would you be happy to go abroad on a club trip for 3 weeks costing the equivalent of about 3 months wages of a frontline staff members wages? I wouldn't.

Lets bring a bit of maths into this. The current split is 66:33. The SU said they receive 280k, meaning C&S receive ~840k. Of this I believe 600k is distributed amongst clubs and societies with the rest being used by insurance fees, admin etc etc.

Now, say C&S take a 5% cut in their 66, bringing it back to 61%, raising the SU to 38%. This equates to ~40k. Assuming the same 240k is not distributed to C&S, this means there is now 560k for C&S to use. Its far from the breadline lads and im sure a lot of innovative C&S could work around the relatively small cut. Go for 2 weeks rather than 3, reduce the total number allowed on an international trip, stay in cheaper hostels, reduce the number of trips slightly, buy less new gear... Meanwhile the SU have a further 40k to pay towards their debts.

A small dose of reality is required I believe, otherwise Clubs and Socs are only going to ostracise themselves as the stubborn, greedy enemy.

Just my two cents, core services and staff surely must come before recreation...

(Prepares to get abuse from C&S friends)

freyners · 03-02-2012 10:33pm

you traitor delta

honestly i can the point of view with the temporary capitation cut, my biggest fear is that the smaller clubs and socs will suffer the brunt of any cut (proportionally) more than the larger ones. (wont name any club or soc here as I dont want people thinking im anti or pro any club/soc) or that new clubs/socs will be disencouraged

My point of view is that if the C&S is touched, then i would want to see the SU make alot of efforts to reduce their expenditure first, there is alot of fat imo that can be trimmed on the SUs side first.

highlydebased · 03-02-2012 10:41pm

I understand, though am open to correction, that the nightlink is sponsored, by who I don't know. Philip Mudge said at class reps council last week that the SU pays for it but is reimbursed by this sponsor.

ninty9er · 03-02-2012 11:23pm

SarahBeep! wrote: »

There are plenty of ways to claw back the debt. A bit of innovation would go a long way. Mudge is trying to deal with mistakes made by a previous GM and he shouldn't have to but, hey, life isn't perfect.

The SU itself doesn't have a lot of debt. ULSU Services Ltd Does. More below.

cambridge wrote: »

The SU is in a lot of debt.

No it isn't

cambridge wrote: »

The previous way of doing things caused the SU to acquire debts.
New methods need to be envisioned to deal with this.
One method that has to be considered is how capitation monies are distributed between the SU and C&S

Both SU and C&S have to reduce expenditure (the su more so).

There is no disputing this.

Had we not decided to take measures to reduce expenditure the SU would be bankrupt, it may yet happen, but I'll be doing all possible and management will be doing all possible to stop it.

reunion wrote: »

SU exec are accountable for their actions for up to 7 years. Getting a ~100k imbalance in the budget isn't something that happened in 1 year, it was probably a factor of numerous things building up over the years.

The €100k imbalance is an annual one. It had previously been bridged by ULSU Services Ltd. I'm not going to get into why thata isn't the case anymore because I know the facts and I'm not going to get into any arguments about how the company was run in the past.

wnolan1992 wrote: »

As it is, the SU is in debt to the tune of 325,000EUR. Part of the SU's expenditure every year is to pay off this debt.

Actually, what I said in response to the question of how much debt the SU is carrying was something along the lines of "not a lot, there are current liabilities of approx €325k, including a figure of about €175k for C&S reserves"

There is Debt beneficially owned by ULSU Services and serviced (paid) by ULSU services, but legally owned by ULSU. (i.e. The benefit of the loan is received by ULSU Services and therefore it is repaying it, however ULSU took the loan on behalf of ULSU Services.)

The only other debt leveraged on ULSU that I am aware of is a lease I signed last week for the purchase of a minibus (approx €10k per annum for the next 5 years)

To the best of my knowledge there is no other long term debt held by ULSU. As an entity with no non-depreciating fixed assets it is difficut to leverage debt.

Yes I did accounting, but in my role for the past 2 years the only money I was managing on a daily basis was Financial Aid which I left a surplus of for the incoming officer and put in place new procedures to maximise this for students.

As far as the Union went, we took our advice from the accountant and auditor that debt needed to be recouped from ULSU Services. Plans were put in place, but they were not sustainable when profits failed to materialise in the company, therefore it has been necessary to restructure it and take decision that will recoup the loans for ULSU.

I'm not going to apologise, nor do I expect anyone would ask my Executive or directors of ULSU Services for maintaining our obligations to members, creditors and the law.

The EGM was about the Union, not ULSU Services, therefore Wednesday's meeting was in no way related to the shops in any other way than they are not giving the Union money. As this is the primary and arguably sole purpose of the company, then decisions about future operations had to be taken in the interests of the owner, ULSU, on behalf of all students.

ninty9er · 03-02-2012 11:27pm

freyners wrote: »

there is alot of fat imo that can be trimmed on the SUs side first.

I can assure you, there isn't!

cambridge · 04-02-2012 12:15am

ULSU Services Ltd should be declared bankrupt and ninty9er should resign.

wnolan1992 · 04-02-2012 12:16am

cambridge wrote: »

ULSU Services Ltd should be declared bankrupt and ninty9er should resign.

No. They shouldn't.

ninty9er · 04-02-2012 12:19am

cambridge wrote: »

ULSU Services Ltd should be declared bankrupt and ninty9er should resign.

How do you know?

Also I can assure you I'm not resigning, thought it would be quite tempting to leave it all to someone else to resolve.

freyners · 04-02-2012 12:39am

cambridge wrote: »

ULSU Services Ltd should be declared bankrupt and ninty9er should resign.

that time of year again?

cambridge · 04-02-2012 12:40am

330k in debt? just write it off.

fair play derek, a good captain always goes down with the ship

wnolan1992 · 04-02-2012 12:42am

cambridge wrote: »

330k in debt? just write it off.

fair play derek, a good captain always goes down with the ship

Wha-?

cambridge · 04-02-2012 1:04am

i don't know why daly comes in for some much flack on this site, so unfair. he's a good man doing his best.

ninty9er · 04-02-2012 1:12am

cambridge wrote: »

i don't know why daly comes in for some much flack on this site, so unfair. he's a good man doing his best.

If I took the stuff said about me on this site personally I'd have given up on life a long time ago. It comes with the job. Woe betide anyone that thinks they're in for an easy ride as a sabbat.

The stuff I get flack for here is a miniscule part of my job. I have lots to be getting on with.

Ordinary people, ordinary things....like I said in the blog.

Polar Ice · 04-02-2012 1:14am

ninty9er wrote: »

The SU itself doesn't have a lot of debt. ULSU Services Ltd Does. More below.

Actually, what I said in response to the question of how much debt the SU is carrying was something along the lines of "not a lot, there are current liabilities of approx €325k, including a figure of about €175k for C&S reserves"

There is Debt beneficially owned by ULSU Services and serviced (paid) by ULSU services, but legally owned by ULSU. (i.e. The benefit of the loan is received by ULSU Services and therefore it is repaying it, however ULSU took the loan on behalf of ULSU Services.)

As far as the Union went, we took our advice from the accountant and auditor that debt needed to be recouped from ULSU Services. Plans were put in place, but they were not sustainable when profits failed to materialise in the company, therefore it has been necessary to restructure it and take decision that will recoup the loans for ULSU.

ninty9er, for the current assets figure relating to intercompany, what percentage of that figure would it be prudent to say will not be recovered within the 12 month time frame and instead rolled over? What about the other headings under current assets (with the exception of physical stock or cash)?

cambridge · 04-02-2012 1:14am

ninty9er wrote: »

If I took the stuff said about me on this site personally I'd have given up on life a long time ago. It comes with the job. Woe betide anyone that thinks they're in for an easy ride as a sabbat.

The stuff I get flack for here is a miniscule part of my job. I have lots to be getting on with.

Ordinary people, ordinary things....like I said in the blog.

good man derek, if you ever need a chat you can count on me

ninty9er · 04-02-2012 1:18am

Polar Ice wrote: »

ninty9er, for the current assets figure relating to intercompany, what percentage of that figure would it be prudent to say will not be recovered within the 12 month time frame and instead rolled over? What about the other headings under current assets (with the exception of physical stock or cash)?

I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere (i.e. email will do too).

Now that the rot has been stopped the focus will shift to issues like that, but it would be fairly safe to say more will be rolling over than recovered by next October. There's also a structural thing that this shouldn't be the job of the President to know, and this is also being addressed. Officers should be able to focus on representative roles and be told how much ULSU Services is giving over to spend.

ULSU EGM

Comments