Class reps council (split from "official bitch about..." thread)

ninty9er

DJCR wrote: »

Not technically ... It's completely true!! However, the whole student body only meets twice a year!! Thats like saying the People of Ireland hold all the power and we should all meet twice a year to dictate the future of the country... what happens in the mean time... whats the Dail for??

Ah yes, but the Dáil in reality just rubberstamps what the Cabinet wants, with issues raised to specific offices otherwise, which is the issue I have, and considering ALL of the students (bar Placements and Co-Op) are on campus makes it easier for the decision to be taken at that level.

The reason the Dáil works is because you could never hold order at a meeting of 2 million people. 10,000 is difficult, but considering quorum is 200, the amount of people that show up is completely dependent on the issues mattering to those in attendance.

The problem with class reps is exactly that the decision making function is superfluous to requirements. For example a TD doesn't raise the pothole outside Pat's house in the Dáil, it is referred to a Council official. This is a completely legitimate function of Class Reps, to act as a go-between for lecturers, the Union, groupings etc. But because of the relatively small constituency that is UL, it is much easier just to have 4 general meetings a year, when anyone can put something on the agenda.

I've never been a class rep, as I see it as a waste of my time to go to a Council where I basically get told what the Sabbats and Non-Sabbats did for the last fortnight and a waste of my class' time if they elect me and I don't go. Catch 22. The Union can get things done by will of the majority who can be arsed to show at a UGM, otherwise CR should meet on academic issues and policy, not all policy. They can go to a UGM like anyone else for anything else.

I used to see a value in Class Reps theoretically, but since so many don't actually go, which is something I only figured out when asked to minute a meeting, there's a problem in that those who want their class rep to do something for them, can't attend and vote in his or her place.

I don't see class reps as a useless function, but I see it as overvalued and underutilised. A small number of people (is it 80 that's quorum?) can make decisions that 10,000 are expected to stick by, which is why I've put my motion to UGM as opposed to class reps.

DJCR

ninty9er wrote: »

Ah yes, but the Dáil in reality just rubberstamps what the Cabinet wants.

Yes we're used to that, but I think we are to be in for a change soon... for better, for worse... And even if it is just a rubber stamp, arn't the views of the minority aired within the Dail as well.... I mean if we were to discuss everything at 2 meetings a year with everybody.... quite frankly the meetings would last for hours... putting people off of coming + causing Quorate not to be reach + causing no decisions to be made.

ninty9er wrote: »

The reason the Dáil works is because you could never hold order at a meeting of 2 million people. 10,000 is difficult, but considering quorum is 200, the amount of people that show up is completely dependent on the issues mattering to those in attendance.

I honestly don't think the Quorum would be left at 200 if this was the only representation available... I mean this University has between 8000 and 9000 students... One could hardly say that any result of this would be representative of the whole College.

However, due to the class rep system ... roughly one rep per every 20 students... The Students of each lass have the OPPORTUNITY to be represented ... whether they choose to be or not is their own choice. Thereby making the current situation as democratic as can be!!

ninty9er wrote: »

The problem with class reps is exactly that the decision making function is superfluous to requirements.

Ok so in this case you would prefer roughly 8 people to make all the decisions and only have to answer for them 4 times during their term!! Not the most democratic....

ninty9er wrote: »

I've never been a class rep, as I see it as a waste of my time to go to a Council where I basically get told what the Sabbats and Non-Sabbats did for the last fortnight.

Well the Sabats are elected officals, they have to be accountable to someone... What are we paying them for if they are doing nothing?? It would be a great job to have if your Boss only popped in 4 times a year!!!!Also if they are seen not to be representing the majority of students in their decisions they can asked to stop and put on the correct line by Class Reps.

ninty9er wrote: »

I used to see a value in Class Reps theoretically, but since so many don't actually go, which is something I only figured out when asked to minute a meeting, there's a problem in that those who want their class rep to do something for them, can't attend and vote in his or her place.

I think I remember saying anyone can attend the CRC.

ninty9er wrote: »

I don't see class reps as a useless function, but I see it as overvalued and underutilised. A small number of people (is it 80 that's quorum?) can make decisions that 10,000 are expected to stick by, which is why I've put my motion to UGM as opposed to class reps.

I agree with you here, there is alot more that we can do with class reps and yes as much as I've defended it there are problems.... I understand your points.

However on the last Quote.... Class Reps do not make decisions that other students will be FORCED to stick to ...... that is the role of the UGM, and that is why we have them..... could you imagine if the whole student populous were bombarded with matters of the day to day running of the Union ... as in what events are being planned (that may not go ahead) or who may be talking at a CRC meeting (or maybe not)..... You see my point!!

In my opinion Class Reps have an integral role to play in the running of the Union and that my dear friends is the last I have to say on the matter cause I feel like Im going around in circles:D:D:D:D

+ I could do with the Cavalry arriving in about now:D:D:D;);)

klong

No need DJCR, at least we're getting opinions without this turning into a massive flame war!

I think the quote of CRC being "overvalued and underutilised" is quite apt though.

ULPaddy

My arrival to this is a little late; however, there can be an benefit to that as I have not yet fallen into the trap of having to defend my corner. I must agree with Dave, the discussion seems to be going in circles with no one actually providing any new information or novel ideas. I've been around for the past four years and whenever I have been in UL, during that time I've been a Class Rep. To say that it is pointless and should be done away with I feel to be an insult to myself and the many of my best friends at UL.

Sadly referring to class reps as "egotistical" seems to be a bad thing, it inevitably having negative connotations. I wish I could say that Class Reps are wholely altruistic in choosing to take on that role, but it's not the case. That is; however, not necessarily a negative thing. What's the point in doing something volutary if you don't enjoy it, if you don't feel good about doing it. As is clear from a number of quotes it isn't the most coveted of roles for which one recieves endless praise and thanks. Aux Contraire it's actually something for which those reps who do take their role seriously, who do care about the student body and do make an effort to bring-about change for the better on campus seem to put-in alot more effort than the reward they recieve. I couldn't see any reason why someone would stay involved with the SU if they didn't enjoy it - simply wouldn't be worth it.

Being a business student I constantly hear about wanting to motivate people and the "effort-reward bargain" and maximising output with minimum input. In my view some of the most motivated individuals in UL are class reps, the SU and student body is getting a pretty good bargain and the input is highly impressive from those "clique-members".

With regard to the use of "clique" to describe it - definitely wrong. It's not exclusive, just most seem not to want to include themselves. How many events are organised, protests planned, items for discussion raised, yet only a small group (relative to entire student population) get involved and it just appens to be the same few. I can see how the perception of a clique may evolve, but it's definitely a malapropism.

Class Reps is in both theory and action a great thing, yet clearly there is a major problem out there:

• Reps and students alike don't know what Class Reps role is
• The efforts and work of the SU and those involved goes very-much unseen by the wider student body and
• Mostly the students don't give a s**t (a less eloquent way of saying student apathy)

That is to name a few. So what's to be done about it? How do we get-rid of the "loafers", those taking a free-ride and bulking-up their C.V.? How do we make the students care? If you have an answer to these, please bring it up at council or go tell a sabbatical officer, I'm sure they would love to know.

I wonder, has anyone actually gone into the education officer and outlined the issues with Class-Reps, the worries they had and made suggestions as to what can be or has to be done. How about disproving the widespread impression of student apathy and actually do something about this.

There is actually a "Class Rep Development Group" that should probably deal with everything that has been raised in this thread. Might be time they got together, took a serious look at what Class Reps and CRC are intended for and to what extent this is being achieved.

ninty9er

DJCR wrote: »

Ok so in this case you would prefer roughly 8 people to make all the decisions and only have to answer for them 4 times during their term!! Not the most democratic....

It's easily as democratic as CRC

DJCR wrote: »

Well the Sabats are elected officals, they have to be accountable to someone... What are we paying them for if they are doing nothing?? It would be a great job to have if your Boss only popped in 4 times a year!!!!Also if they are seen not to be representing the majority of students in their decisions they can asked to stop and put on the correct line by Class Reps.

When you and I were in first year they did it through the medium of An Focal. As an outsider it made them approachable if you saw them in An Focal every 2 weeks telling you what they had done.

DJCR wrote: »

I think I remember saying anyone can attend the CRC.

I remember referring specifically to voting.:D

ULPaddy

ninty9er wrote: »

Originally Posted by DJCR
Ok so in this case you would prefer roughly 8 people to make all the decisions and only have to answer for them 4 times during their term!! Not the most democratic....

Posted by ninty9er
It's easily as democratic as CRC

ninty9er, you have seen the turnout at AGMs and UGMs the past years and that is WITH class reps attending them. If you didn't have class reps there, what you would end up with are the Sabbats and about 10 people looking very confused after being dragged along because they just happened to walk by the sabbats a few minutes earlier as the sabbats made thir way to the General Meeting. Personally, the statement is quite frivolous without actually backing it up with some form of evidence or other support - without that it's nothing but a broad-ranging cynical opinion. Provide some rationale for your view, because I can't see how 8 people giving a speech 4 times a year about their decisions could be "as democratic" as 100-200 students meeting 10-12 times a year after having been elected to represent the majority of 10,000+ students!

Equally, you must consider the practicality of 4 such meetings per year - if each class-reps takes the good part of an hour, how long would these General Meetings take to work-through - nobody would attend a 5 hour meeting! In addition the progress of the union is hindered and made slow enough on many occasions without the additional problem of only being able to get a "green-light" 4 times a year. Sorry ninety9er, but from a logical perspective the suggestion that it is "as democratic" is quite obsurd.

ninty9er wrote: »

Originally Posted by DJCR
Well the Sabats are elected officals, they have to be accountable to someone... What are we paying them for if they are doing nothing?? It would be a great job to have if your Boss only popped in 4 times a year!!!!Also if they are seen not to be representing the majority of students in their decisions they can asked to stop and put on the correct line by Class Reps.

Posted by ninty9er
When you and I were in first year they did it through the medium of An Focal. As an outsider it made them approachable if you saw them in An Focal every 2 weeks telling you what they had done.

If Bluedolphin could provide verification of this it would be appreciated. Don't the Sabbats still do this!?

ninty9er wrote: »

Originally Posted by DJCR
I think I remember saying anyone can attend the CRC.

Posted by ninty9er
I remember referring specifically to voting.:D

That's why Class Reps are meant to "REPRESENT" their classes view. If there is an individual there and they have an issue, then it is the Reps role to raise the issue and vote according to what his/her classes opinion is. Even if the classes view contrasts that of the individual the rep is representing the majority (this is known as Democracy).

Robo_Mike

Does anyone else feel we got nowhere last night in council????? I know what Don Barry was talking about was important but it surely could have been wrapped up faster..... The last half hour of questions seemed to lead nowhere and nothing constructive was brought out of them..... We were goin around in circles... If attendance needs to be kept up the meetings need to be kept more precise and compact.....

Just my 2 cents....

ergonomics

I get the feeling that everyone felt the meeting was dragging on, but no one really wanted to tell the President of UL to shut up.

DJCR

ergonomics wrote: »

I get the feeling that everyone felt the meeting was dragging on, but no one really wanted to tell the President of UL to shut up.

I thought he was great ........ very clever man!!

I felt empathic towards him....

ie. He made it clear that he felt no one should have to pay fees ("Socialist at heart" I believe was the quote.

However, in his professional capacity he needs the money to do his job and he really doesn't care where he gets it from seen as the Uni is €6 million in debt ........ and he has to finnish the year with a deficit of €2 million!!

I mean, can you imagine the cut backs he has to administer..... + the fact he has guarenteed a solution to the Pitch Problem we have at the moment......... which is onna cost another couple of million!!

Put simply...... I don't envy his position!

sceptre

DJCR wrote: »

+ the fact he has guarenteed a solution to the Pitch Problem we have at the moment......... which is onna cost another couple of million!!

That'll come out of the capital budget - won't affect anything with regard to funding anything else or the deficit (it's what I call the "reverse Living bridge" argument).

DJCR

sceptre wrote: »

That'll come out of the capital budget - won't affect anything with regard to funding anything else or the deficit (it's what I call the "reverse Living bridge" argument).

You know... I've used this arguement myself and the more I look into it, the less I'm covinced!!

I mean the money has to come from somewhere ie. the Govt.

Thats where most of the Uni money comes from ... so I'm beginning to think that even though "Officially" we don't loose out on funding.... we must loose out somewhere.

Also Don refered to "finding money" for this project....... so I'm not sure they even know where the funding for this will come from themselves!!

sceptre

DJCR wrote: »

so I'm beginning to think that even though "Officially" we don't loose out on funding.... we must loose out somewhere.

You'd think that. However capital funding generally comes from sources that aren't government. These sources of funding won't fund a current budget expense anyway. And where it comes from sources that *are* government, firstly they're matched funds which halves the amount coming from government anyway and secondly the funds are provided for capital projects and capital projects only (they'd never find their way into current account plugging).

Money to fix the pitches is likely to come from one of two sources (or both): fundraising from the usual benefactors (who won't pay for any current expenses, only capital) or government funds for recreational facilities (which also won't pay for current expenses, only capital). There's no specific current government DoE fund for recreational facilities in educational facilities (never has been either as far as I know, that's why secondary schools keep buying their own pitches solely out of fundraising efforts) so it can't come from something like that.

Hence, while I can well understand the notion that the money has to come from somewhere that will be diverting money that could have been used to pay for wages and electricity and all the other things that are funded by the current account, that's not going to happen. Not in this case.

You could make an argument that at a very high level the government could decide to put money into university current account funding or university capital account funding and hence there's a loss to be made but that doesn't apply, again for two reasons: firstly, the government make a decision about the total amount that goes into each fund pretty much regardless of individual need in the first place (look at the matched funding for the library - that was announced to be funded by the first bundle of TLI PPP almost a year after the total amount in the fund had been decided (the money could have gone to UL, CIT, LIT and DLIADT as it did or any other colleges if they'd decided otherwise) and secondly the government won't be paying a bean towards this as part of actual 3rd level or educational funding anyway (if there's any government funding, it'll come out of the sport or environment kitty).

When Don refers to "finding money" for it, he's basically saying he doesn't necessarily yet know who he's going to pimp himself to for it. Capital expenditure like this can't impact on any current expenditure funding. At best or at worst, he asks a benefactor for money for this in preference to asking a benefactor for money for a new building - the next new building planned with a shortfall in funding is the President's house. Don doesn't want to live there anyway so it probably suits him to put off funding for it. Win-win for everyone.

DJCR

Cheers for the above........

It's head wreckin.... Good luck finding Benefactors.

We may have to rename the pitches in the name of Advertising :D:D:D

ninty9er

DJCR wrote: »

Also Don refered to "finding money" for this project....... so I'm not sure they even know where the funding for this will come from themselves!!

Lets just say there's likely to be a delay in the construction of Plassey House Vol.2. That would have cost the same.

ULPaddy

Robo_Mike wrote: »

Does anyone else feel we got nowhere last night in council????? I know what Don Barry was talking about was important but it surely could have been wrapped up faster..... The last half hour of questions seemed to lead nowhere and nothing constructive was brought out of them..... We were goin around in circles... If attendance needs to be kept up the meetings need to be kept more precise and compact.....

Just my 2 cents....

Well, I'm gonna be a complete diplomat here and say I both agree and disagree. Here's a few points I had intended on making in the meeting - about 15 minutes before it ended - partially in the hope of bringing it to a close:

Firstly my respects and fair dues to Don Barry for returning time and again to the Council meetings knowing well what awaits him - an hour-long inquisition per se. Sadly I did not come to word at the closing stage of the meeting tonight and had personally hoped to provide somewhat of a summation and closing statement touching on the central points, but, alas my hand was overseen or ignored. The three points I had wished to make were:


1. With regard to FEES he stated (and DJCR in part alluded to this) that he would not change his position - in that he does not care where the money comes from, whether it be students or government. In terms of this:
- should his obligation not be to students and helping them avoid the possible ramifications and financial problems they may suffer through the introduction of fees, rather than to the government and solving there financial problems through the introduction of fees?

2. The majority of responses to his ambition to broaden degrees by introducing interdisciplinary modules were criticisms of the idea - personally I think it a wonderful idea. In terms of my own personal experience as a 4th year with employers, through interviews, presentations and the likes, is precisely the point which you made. They are looking for "well-rounded" individuals who can work in a dynamic and flexible fashion (something gained through a broader range of subjects). Additionally, as a BBS student after four years of hearing income must exceed costs in the long-term it becomes a little repetitive. I would have loved to have undertaken subjects in Engineering, Literature, psychology etc.
A slight concern was the use of the word "force" - which I didn't like. If such a system were to be introduced than I think it is important to offer a choice that students won't be doing courses they despise, seen as irrelevant and then not attending.

3. In terms of costs and the deficit which the university now faces:
- there has been rumor of a new Presidents House being constructed, costing a few million. Is this true? If so is a new house necessary and could that money not be better invested in alleviating the deficit?
- Could the money used to build new buildings not also be used to maintain them (the two-budgets issue).

This final point has now been cleared-up by Ninety9er. Personally I'd prefer good pitches to a pretty house - it also supports DJCRs initial point that Don's a great fella at heart (even if he did study maths and ONLY maths ) and I feel empathic towards him (and not just because he studied maths).