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
ULSU AGM 2012/13 (Thursday 11th October @ 3pm in the Concert Hall)
Options
Comments
-
Stephen_Byrne wrote: »
Thanks Stephen.
Was there any answer to the question about why the three proposed developments (new student centre, arena extension and pitch development) were rolled into one for the fund-it referendum? Saw it referenced on twitter but there wasn't a tweet included with an answer. I'm sure there are theories but I'm more interested in the answer.TST wrote:Also of note was the announcement that if the referendum on the new student centre were to pass the student centre levy would be increased to more than a hundred euro. This is because students will pay half of the cost of funding the development which also includes an extension to the arena and a redevelopment of Maguires pitches.0 -
Thanks Stephen.
Was there any answer to the question about why the three proposed developments (new student centre, arena extension and pitch development) were rolled into one for the fund-it referendum? Saw it referenced on twitter but there wasn't a tweet included with an answer. I'm sure there are theories but I'm more interested in the answer.
easier to get it passed maybe? I'm sure if it was only for one of the three there would be some people who would oppose it as they would rather have their pet project funded. Having them all in one means that vast majority of students benefit in some way
My theory only, would also be interested in the reasoning behind it0 -
Thanks Stephen.
Was there any answer to the question about why the three proposed developments (new student centre, arena extension and pitch development) were rolled into one for the fund-it referendum? Saw it referenced on twitter but there wasn't a tweet included with an answer. I'm sure there are theories but I'm more interested in the answer.
Only heard it on ULFM, but from what Adam(?) was saying, it was because they felt it would be easier to get it through if they rolled them into one. That some people would be in favour of the Arena and Maguire's bue against the Student Center and vice-versa.0 -
Was there any answer to the question about why the three proposed developments (new student centre, arena extension and pitch development) were rolled into one for the fund-it referendum? Saw it referenced on twitter but there wasn't a tweet included with an answer. I'm sure there are theories but I'm more interested in the answer.
I asked the question and it wasn't really answered very well IMO. Adam's basic point as far as I could figure it out was that the issues wouldn't pass on their own so they got rolled into one big one.
IMO this means that the funding needed for the sports facilities is not going to become available because of the cost of the proposed new student centre. I've a feeling the cost of that facility will be too much for most students in the current economic climate. I don't see that the proposed new development adds any facilities that are not already available on campus (aside from the nightclub which is just a daft idea).
It also turns over a building which was built with (IIRC) IR£4 million of students' money 13 years ago to the university to do with as they please.0 -
I asked the question and it wasn't really answered very well IMO. Adam's basic point as far as I could figure it out was that the issues wouldn't pass on their own so they got rolled into one big one.
IMO this means that the funding needed for the sports facilities is not going to become available because of the cost of the proposed new student centre. I've a feeling the cost of that facility will be too much for most students in the current economic climate. I don't see that the proposed new development adds any facilities that are not already available on campus (aside from the nightclub which is just a daft idea).
It also turns over a building which was built with (IIRC) IR£4 million of students' money 13 years ago to the university to do with as they please.
The current SU building could be rented out and could generate more income for students or sold to UL (I think, I could be wrong).
If you break them down, each project has merit and affects a different type of student. If you seperate them, you would need 1800 people to vote and 1200 to vote yes (need a 2/3rds majority). Since each project deals with a different type of student, this would be hard to accomplish. All projects are expensive (student centre a bit more granted) but together they may stand a chance of passing.
If you broke it down individually
€x for Arena extension
€y for Pitches
€z for Student Centre
You would have people saying and voting yes for one or two items but saying no the remaining ones.
Like Adam said at the general meeting, there was a working group and they felt together it had the best chance at passing.
The number of students is expected to increase (particularly with increased points given for maths) however as far as I'm aware this wasn't factored in, so the building could be paid off quicker than expected.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
If you break them down, each project has merit and affects a different type of student. If you seperate them, you would need 1800 people to vote and 1200 to vote yes (need a 2/3rds majority). Since each project deals with a different type of student, this would be hard to accomplish. All projects are expensive (student centre a bit more granted) but together they may stand a chance of passing.
If you broke it down individually
€x for Arena extension
€y for Pitches
€z for Student Centre
You would have people saying and voting yes for one or two items but saying no the remaining ones.
Like Adam said at the general meeting, there was a working group and they felt together it had the best chance at passing.
And that's how democracy works: people vote for the thing they want/need and reject that which they don't.
I don't see the student centre passing a referendum due to the cost involved, but I could see the sports facilities getting the nod on their own. I was involved in the campaign for the boathouse 9 years ago and we got 3000 people out to vote in the end. That was between 4 clubs: we have many more field clubs than that with many more members. It should be pretty easy to mobilise enough bodies to get a good turnout.
I don't think enough students see any deficiency in the existing student centre to bother voting for a new one when it'll cost them money.0 -
And that's how democracy works: people vote for the thing they want/need and reject that which they don't.
I don't think enough students see any deficiency in the existing student centre to bother voting for a new one when it'll cost them money.
In reality these students are not voting for themselves, especially 4th years. They are voting for extra fees for incoming students for facilities that they will never get to use.
Look at the boathouse..... €4.1 million euro was paid to build a boathouse, for a rowing club that in reality has very small numbers compared to others.
If that money was spent on the pitches in UL many more people would get the benefit. How that was built before the pitches were developed I will never know.0 -
And that's how democracy works: people vote for the thing they want/need and reject that which they don't.
I don't see the student centre passing a referendum due to the cost involved, but I could see the sports facilities getting the nod on their own. I was involved in the campaign for the boathouse 9 years ago and we got 3000 people out to vote in the end. That was between 4 clubs: we have many more field clubs than that with many more members. It should be pretty easy to mobilise enough bodies to get a good turnout.
I don't think enough students see any deficiency in the existing student centre to bother voting for a new one when it'll cost them money.
The new student centre would be a huge benefit for Societies and for Students in general (Just a question but were study areas a problem when you went to college? how about getting a computer on campus? and as another thread has stated, computer labs are now closing earlier). The college has stopped allowing people booking rooms on campus affecting EVERY club and society (i.e everyone benefits from this). A new student centre would allow Clubs and Societies more meeting rooms and space. More offices are needed as the CSDO (Paul) and the CSLO (Liz, a new position since 2010 I think) are operating out of a meeting room and a handmade office taking up space in the C&S office. This is reducing the rooms available in the SU to Clubs and Societies and the Union itself. I believe (I could be wrong) this item would probably be the only thing to pass on it's own as it benefits everyone. However, this would be expensive and result in the pitches and Arena extension being put on hold until the Student Centre would be paid off. I'm guessing this would be longer than the boathouse to pay off (though I don't know), to combine everything allows everyone to benefit not a select few.
The boat house was for clubs only, a minimal amount of clubs at that.
Societies (and the average student) should not tolerate another expensive venture which helps a minimal amount of clubs. The average student who is not apart of a club, will not want to pay to faciliate things that only benefit a select number of clubs. Some clubs already have the facilities they need, so an upgrade in the pitches and an arena extension mightn't affect them.
Keep in mind, the motion needs at least 1800 people and at that, 2/3rds of the votes have to be in favour. The boathouse was the only motion put forward last time, this time there would be 3. If they were put individually, you may get people voting for one motion and then voting against a different motion. This could result in NO building projects at all (though I am of the view the Student Centre would be passed due to it's benefit to every student and every club and society (along with potential extra income generated from selling/renting the old Union building)).
Another way to look at it is: the boathouse took ~8 years to pay off and in the mean time, clubs have been calling for the pitches to be improved since 2008 (if I remember correctly). If these aren't lumped together (or all 3 don't pass individually), you could end up having the pitches being unplayable for another ~8 years. Clubs and Societies unable to book rooms in the university for years and students not having enough space (and time) in computer labs and for study.
If they are all together, it benefits nearly everyone on campus (maybe some students more than others granted) but it helps everyone. The view to split it seperately would do more harm than good.In reality these students are not voting for themselves, especially 4th years. They are voting for extra fees for incoming students for facilities that they will never get to use.
Look at the boathouse..... €4.1 million euro was paid to build a boathouse, for a rowing club that in reality has very small numbers compared to others.
If that money was spent on the pitches in UL many more people would get the benefit. How that was built before the pitches were developed I will never know.
I don't want this to turn into complaints about the boathouse, in 2004(ish) the pitches were playable (I'm guessing) and it wasn't until 2008 that the issue was brought to attention and brought to C&S council. The current proposal hopes to combine the needs of students at the moment, but also of students in the future.
Another interesting point: if people are willing to pay €72 for a boathouse that most people don't use, then they may be willing to pay a bit more for things that will benefit them (the pitches upgrade would be a year I think to complete and as this is happening every club will be faciliated on the north campus (the cost of which would be included in the proposal). So students would see benefits from this straight away.0 -
The new student centre would be a huge benefit for Societies and for Students in general (Just a question but were study areas a problem when you went to college? how about getting a computer on campus? and as another thread has stated, computer labs are now closing earlier). The college has stopped allowing people booking rooms on campus affecting EVERY club and society (i.e everyone benefits from this). A new student centre would allow Clubs and Societies more meeting rooms and space. More offices are needed as the CSDO (Paul) and the CSLO (Liz, a new position since 2010 I think) are operating out of a meeting room and a handmade office taking up space in the C&S office. This is reducing the rooms available in the SU to Clubs and Societies and the Union itself.
You're missing the point I made on this. These facilities exist on campus: not being able to use them is simply a governance/administration issue. I'd rather see the union put its energy first into restoring these facilities to students before jumping in at the deep end with a brand new facility.
I also don't see the university paying the SU for the existing building. As far as they're concerned, they already own the building, notwithstanding that students paid for it.
And yes, the boathouse only caters for a small number of clubs, but we went to the bother of getting off our arses and getting people to vote in the referendum. There were lots of naysayers at the time too, but they never mounted a decent campaign or got people in to vote against it. It really is as simple as that. The other significant thing about that project is that it set a precedent for others to follow: it's possible for a student led project that will benefit clubs and societies to get off the ground and come to fruition.0 -
Advertisement
-
Was there some part of this that was difficult to understand, supackofidiots? Kindly don't break my irony meter.Moderator note: Personalising arguments or discussions generally makes the person personalising them look like an idiot - and, more pertinently, makes the point of the post look like an attack rather than an attempt to make a valid point. When making a post (really, anywhere, but definitely here), kindly do yourself the favour of not making yourself look like an idiot. You don't have to act like an adult (growing up and growing old are not synonymous) but people sitting at the adult table get taken a lot more seriously when they do. Your mileage may vary but all of this stuff is searchable forever. Build a foundation before building an ego on top of it - or, better still, just make your point reasonably like a rational individual.
/mod
Read it, stick to the point and then make one. Rationally, like most of the other adult people are doing. You shouldn't require a personal notification of not personalising the discussion but there's one for you anyway.0 -
You're missing the point I made on this. These facilities exist on campus: not being able to use them is simply a governance/administration issue. I'd rather see the union put its energy first into restoring these facilities to students before jumping in at the deep end with a brand new facility.
These facilities (pitches, computer labs, rooms, etc) don't meet the needs of the students using them or can't be used by students. The fact that a sub.standard facility exists is the reason for improvements. When it comes to buildings, its actually cheaper to build a new building then it would be to improve the existing structure.I also don't see the university paying the SU for the existing building. As far as they're concerned, they already own the building, notwithstanding that students paid for it.
No they don't own the building (they may own part of it possibly). If you email the su president about this, he might be able to clear it up. The building may be rented to the university. For what purpose and what price, I don't know.And yes, the boathouse only caters for a small number of clubs, but we went to the bother of getting off our arses and getting people to vote in the referendum. There were lots of naysayers at the time too, but they never mounted a decent campaign or got people in to vote against it. It really is as simple as that. The other significant thing about that project is that it set a precedent for others to follow: it's possible for a student led project that will benefit clubs and societies to get off the ground and come to fruition.
I don't want to get into a discussion about the boathouse, however you raise a point about the no voters not voting.
This time the no voters for one motion could be a yes for another motion. Thus selling these individually could be counter productive to other motions.0 -
No they don't own the building (they may own part of it possibly). If you email the su president about this, he might be able to clear it up. The building may be rented to the university. For what purpose and what price, I don't know.
The Union should be making this information available to its members...0 -
The Union should be making this information available to its members...
no idea what the price or what the purpose would be. I suppose the university won't entertain plans until after the referendum.
As for ownership of the SU, again no idea, though if it was paid for by students, students own it. However judging from the coop interview rooms in the SU, I'd say the college own some of it.0 -
no idea what the price or what the purpose would be. I suppose the university won't entertain plans until after the referendum.
As for ownership of the SU, again no idea, though if it was paid for by students, students own it. However judging from the coop interview rooms in the SU, I'd say the college own some of it.
I know you're not in a position to provide this information.
It is a rather important point that before a referendum/AGM/vote of any sort that all this sort of information should be widely available without some individual student having to do the solo private investigator run.0
Advertisement