Referendum 15th Nov

Kelefants

I think there are a few key points here.

Firstly, the referendum put before the students would have to be seen before you could say it's a good or a bad decision. The plans may drastically change after listening to student input. So until it happens we cannot say it's a good or a bad thing.

Secondly, the margin was so close to a 'super majority' a lot of the yes campaigners see it as a mandate from the students that there are a few things to change, but the plans are widely wanted.

Chuck Feeney's funding would need to be available.

At the minute it is all idle speculation and until we see the course of action the Union takes it is difficult to comment on.

ChrisOF

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Why bother holding a referendum if you're not going to accept the result? :rolleyes:

Did they not? As far as I can see the project is not currently going ahead. Does that not reflect the referendum result?

Given that a large majority of those who voted actually voted in favor of the project, I think the Union has to take that as a mandate to continue working on the proposal and see if they can address enough of the concerns of those who voted no to get the project passed.

Ginge Young

ChrisOF wrote: »

Did they not? As far as I can see the project is not currently going ahead. Does that not reflect the referendum result?

Given that a large majority of those who voted actually voted in favor of the project, I think the Union has to take that as a mandate to continue working on the proposal and see if they can address enough of the concerns of those who voted no to get the project passed.

Couldn't have said it better.

The same referendum would not be presented again i imagine, I would not like to see that happen as if it did it would be a repeat of the lisbon treaty.

A survey I imagine will be held to establish what way people voted and why.

canned_ulkc

I'm sure plenty of people will roll their eyes at the prospect of a referendum happening again but there was a lot of misunderstanding on it this time around. The story quoted is in the most recent version of An Focal, available here:
http://issuu.com/ulsu/docs/af_xx_vi_

On page 9 (http://issuu.com/ulsu/docs/af_xx_vi_/9) you can read a letter I sent to the editor which outlines some of the misconceptions and how any possible referendum should be about a modified proposal.

Only my opinion so don't take my opinion as fact please!

Kelefants

Ginge Young wrote: »

Couldn't have said it better.

The same referendum will not be presented, I would not like to see that happen as if it did it would be a repeat of the lisbon treaty.

A survey I imagine will be held to establish what way people voted and why.

I completely agree, it would be insulting to the 39% of voters who voted no and would potentially result in the Union alienating itself from the students again after receiving such a boost with the turn out!

ChrisOF

Personally for any rerun of the referendum, I would like to see three seperate votes rather than one. I support all three but one thing that came up again and again was that people did not like having to vote for or against all three.
Another issue last time was that there was a feeling of uncertainty, a lot of students did not really know much of the detail surrounding the whole thing and I think for some it lead to a 'don't know - vote no' reaction.
I think for a seond referendum people will have a much better idea of what is going on, simply by virtue of hearing about the first one.

MajesticDonkey

Cydoniac wrote: »

To be honest I think it's pretty cheeky to hold another referendum after that. It's almost like a mindset where if you ask a reluctant question over and over eventually people will give you the answer you want to hear.

Exactly. Like I said:

I don't actually get why there should be another vote. Should the SU not worship students' opinions this time round? Would they be so quick to hold a second vote if this one was passed, I dunno, maybe to see if all the yes voters wanted to change their minds?

Ginge Young

If it is not the same referendum, if the reasons why people voted no were addressed and that made them want to vote yes, while everyone else still remained happy with how it was, how can it not go ahead again?

There is going to be more engagement than ever from students in terms of feedback for the union I imagine and it is a great opportunity to see progress in this respect.

Again, I would never imagine the exact same referendum going forward. If it is on the same projects with peoples issues addressed and changes made, it has every right to be put forward again if students want it to be, again as always, students decide what goes to referendum and at the end of the day, students decide yes or no. They decided no to this, but if it changes, that is a new referendum and new conditions and they have every right to be asked again.

Edit: That being said, if it was a no again, I reckon all funding would be lost (if it hasn't already) and it would be years before a referendum on anything similar would be seen again.

J_E

Giving it a little think over, I think if anything another referendum would be a good way to get a better overall view from students. This time keeping the information clear, concise and unbiased, and providing an FAQ for the people who think the money could be spent on the library, Schrodinger, etc. Possibly a separate vote too for each project, or at least separate the pitch/arena vote from the student centre vote. Even so though, a re-referendum of sorts (of which it would be, despite any rewording) isn't the most ideal solution...

Ginge Young

Cydoniac wrote: »

Giving it a little think over, I think if anything another referendum would be a good way to get a better overall view from students. This time keeping the information clear, concise and unbiased, and providing an FAQ for the people who think the money could be spent on the library, Schrodinger, etc. Possibly a separate vote too for each project, or at least separate the pitch/arena vote from the student centre vote. Even so though, a re-referendum of sorts (of which it would be, despite any rewording) isn't the most ideal solution...

Can I just say, that that is the exact feedback that is required. Whether or not I agree with it all I'll keep to myself, but I think it is important that students be given the opportunity to present feedback and if changes are made, given the opportunity to vote again. If they like the changes and vote yes great, if not, they vote no and thats perfectly acceptable too. The point is students are being given the opportunity.

TheGunns

Ginge Young wrote: »

Can I just say, that that is the exact feedback that is required. Whether or not I agree with it all I'll keep to myself, but I think it is important that students be given the opportunity to present feedback and if changes are made, given the opportunity to vote again. If they like the changes and vote yes great, if not, they vote no and thats perfectly acceptable too. The point is students are being given the opportunity.

Students were already given the opportunity and they didnt pass it. Everyone knew that 66 % was required, if they thought there was problems with it they shouldnt have run it at all. No point going back after everything didnt turn out the way they wanted and voting on an 'amended' referendum. They should have looked for feedback before the vote, not after everything has been said and done. The project should be left alone for the time being and they should revisit it in a couple of years.

If they vote no the second time its accpetable? Why was the no vote not acceptable the first time?

Ginge Young

TheGunns wrote: »

If they vote no the second time its accpetable? Why was the no vote not acceptable the first time?

At that point I believe it would turn into "keep going until you force people into a yes vote" which a few people here have mentioned. Not to mention the opportunity is likely lost then as well.

If the referendum changes, it's a new referendum, it may be on the same topic, but for the sake of 61% saying yes (I know it's not the 66%) a majority do want it. There was a lot of misconceptions and changes could possibly be made, I genuinely don't know, but if there are and students decide to put it to a vote again then who knows, maybe some of the yes voters will vote no and it still won't pass, or maybe it would and maybe the majority will be satisfied with it and delighted a new one with even more feedback is taken on board.

Who is anyone to deny students the right to vote on a new referendum, new terms, potentially to the benefit of all students following feedback I hope will be gotten off of them, even if it is the same projects?

J_E

TheGunns wrote: »

If they vote no the second time its accpetable? Why was the no vote not acceptable the first time?

It wasn't even a no vote that stopped the motion from passing. It didn't even reach the 2/3 quota for voting.

The project should be left alone for the time being and they should revisit it in a couple of years.

The whole idea of having it now was because there is a large source of money available for the projects and it won't always be there. That's why myself and others were infuriated when the SU basically blew their chances by having a terrible start to promoting the referendum.

Chimaera

One thing that is absolutely needed this time around (if the second referendum goes ahead) is ONE SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION SOURCE for everything.

Part of the problem this time is that there were too many incomplete information sources competing for students' attention. There were at least 2 third party sites set up by alumni, the ULSU website, the UL Wolves website, the ULSU facebook page, the UL Wolves facebook page, Paul Lee's facebook page, and I think a special facebook page set up for the referendum (plus this thread on boards). Every one of these had differing levels of information and none of it complete.

In the event of a second referendum being launched, someone in the SU needs to be given the job of collecting information on the issues, and keeping one main site updated. A good starting point would be the above sites I've mentioned: collate the information collected there into a coherent info site. After that it's a case of keeping up with questions and comments so that there's a one-click solution for anyone trying to figure out the issues.

Kelefants

Chimaera wrote: »

In the event of a second referendum being launched, someone in the SU needs to be given the job of collecting information on the issues, and keeping one main site updated. A good starting point would be the above sites I've mentioned: collate the information collected there into a coherent info site. After that it's a case of keeping up with questions and comments so that there's a one-click solution for anyone trying to figure out the issues.

I completely agree with this also. There was so much misinformation about in regards to the proposal, and that is mostly to blame on the Union. Could the lack of a Communications Officer be part of the problem?

If a referendum goes ahead, I'd like to see the Union out there from week one promoting it, raising awareness. Set up an information stand in the red raisins, let people come talk to them. Don't solely rely on the Clubs and Socs to get the campaign going.

Polar Ice

Chimaera wrote: »

In the event of a second referendum being launched, someone in the SU needs to be given the job of collecting information on the issues, and keeping one main site updated.

Who was on the ERB? Wouldn't it have been their job?

canned_ulkc

TheGunns wrote: »

Students were already given the opportunity and they didnt pass it. Everyone knew that 66 % was required, if they thought there was problems with it they shouldnt have run it at all. No point going back after everything didnt turn out the way they wanted and voting on an 'amended' referendum. They should have looked for feedback before the vote, not after everything has been said and done. The project should be left alone for the time being and they should revisit it in a couple of years.

If they vote no the second time its accpetable? Why was the no vote not acceptable the first time?

It wasn't a No vote - it was a vote that was neither Yes or No. Many people on both sides have pointed at different aspects of imperfections in the campaign so I don't get why there would be much resistance to an amended referendum.

In terms of looking for feedback before the referendum - as has been pointed out MANY times there was ample opportunity to give feedback. This project was flagged about 2 years ago and over the last 6 months or so has been brought up in various forums where there was ample opportunity to give feedback, ask questions, express doubt or support.

The strange thing is that separating the three elements is being presented as a significant problem. Of course you're more likely to hear people say "I voted no but would have voted for X& Y" than "I voted Yes because all 3 were in together and why shouldn't I get something out of it"
So the idea of splitting out the elements could leave it that Maguire's doesn't get done for example, given that people could just as easily decide that it's for GAA and nothing else (despite this not being true).

Another strange one is people saying "I voted no because the plans aren't clear" coupled with "I wonder how much money was wasted in getting the plans drawn up", "They should have made the plans more definite" and "I have no opportunity to say what will be in the student centre". Many of these are completely contradictory.

It would actually be very healthy for people to write an email about their reasons for voting no and yes as it's very very difficult to quantify the weight of many of these points. Really there are some points being made (not here necessarily) that are in danger of being dismissed as anti-SU vote. It'd be useful to nobody to allow that to happen so it's far better to voice concerns now rather than letting it slip by and complaining later.

ChrisOF

Chimaera wrote: »

One thing that is absolutely needed this time around (if the second referendum goes ahead) is ONE SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION SOURCE for everything.

Part of the problem this time is that there were too many incomplete information sources competing for students' attention. There were at least 2 third party sites set up by alumni, the ULSU website, the UL Wolves website, the ULSU facebook page, the UL Wolves facebook page, Paul Lee's facebook page, and I think a special facebook page set up for the referendum (plus this thread on boards). Every one of these had differing levels of information and none of it complete.

In the event of a second referendum being launched, someone in the SU needs to be given the job of collecting information on the issues, and keeping one main site updated. A good starting point would be the above sites I've mentioned: collate the information collected there into a coherent info site. After that it's a case of keeping up with questions and comments so that there's a one-click solution for anyone trying to figure out the issues.

+1000. One of the big problems with the last time was that the Yes campaign had too many different information sources, the no side had none, and there was almost no unbiased info source.

The Unbiased Referendum Commission (Can't remember what they were actually called) didn't do a good job of getting the facts out to the student population.

Polar Ice

ChrisOF wrote: »

Unbiased Referendum Commission

Who were they? the ERB?

Nockz

According to the Referendum Facebook page:

Feedback from the ULSU Referendum survey so far:
18% of people who voted admitted they 'did not make a fully informed choice'

31% of students said they couldn't afford an increase to the levy
19% of students said they couldn't afford the current levy

24% of students don't think a levy should be used for capital projects.

canned_ulkc

given that 50% of the survey responses appear to say they can't afford a levy/levy increase I think it's pretty obvious this survey has been filled out by a greater % of no voters than yes voters and is skewed. It's anonymous too so anyone can fill it out.

Not only can anyone fill it out - if you've already filled it out you can CTRL+SHIFT+DELETE and clear your browsing history and submit again and again.

Very flawed survey which deserves no credibility

ChrisOF

Nockz wrote: »

According to the Referendum Facebook page:

Just FYI, as far as I know, that page and the survey was not set up by the Union.

freyners

one of the issues i got from a couple of students is they would rather see the money on the library and voted no accordingly.AFAIK the library is being funded through other means and the funding in the referendum cant be diverted like that and when I said this to them a few regretted voting no.

this point needs to be got across if the are to have another one

Kelefants

ChrisOF wrote: »

Just FYI, as far as I know, that page and the survey was not set up by the Union.

Yet it was a great resource so well done to them!


That was one of the big issue Freyners, the misinformation cost us dearly. Throughout the day we met people who voted no for reasons that were false and regretted it after we spoke to them. It's a shame really.

ninty9er

The same referendum can't be put in the same academic year.

Additionally, the potential for the student centre philanthropic donation of ~50% would have freed up the student ~50% for the other projects.

(i.e. it is my understanding that the donor has no interest in funding pitches and arena)

Peter T

I voted no because I saw the plans for the new su as excessive. Do we really need a 3 story bar/nightclub ? and cinema that would probably never be used. I though the SU was expanding in order to have a better working environment not a pimp pad like mtv cribs. Now the other two proposals I agree with.

Ginge Young

Peter T wrote: »

I voted no because I saw the plans for the new su as excessive. Do we really need a 3 story bar/nightclub ? and cinema that would probably never be used. I though the SU was expanding in order to have a better working environment not a pimp pad like mtv cribs. Now the other two proposals I agree with.

The cinema was a multi purpose room, just not explained well. It could be used by clubs/socs to show movies, games society could have used it and it would have been general purpose too.

None of the plans were final. The 'plans' shown were conceptual, this is what it could look like, not what it will. I imagine had it gone through, based off of feedback the venue area would have been changed. Not just a nightclub/bar, it would be a place for conventions/IV's etc etc.

Kelefants

Peter T wrote: »

I voted no because I saw the plans for the new su as excessive. Do we really need a 3 story bar/nightclub ? and cinema that would probably never be used. I though the SU was expanding in order to have a better working environment not a pimp pad like mtv cribs. Now the other two proposals I agree with.

The referendum wasn't for a new SU... It was for a new Student Centre, even those who don't know what the SU is would have used it.

The 3 story 'nightclub' was not actually a night club. It was a multipurpose event room. The artist just through in lights and people which made people think it was a night club.

The cinema was also another multipurpose room that could have been used for a variety of things, it wasn't a 'cinema' per se.

The plans were based off of American and British Student Centres where they saw over 90% of students use the facilities as far as I know... That would have enhanced the student experience and created a closer student community. The SU would also have found a new home, which is badly needed for them. It was built for a different time, catering for different needs and less students.

reunion

canned_ulkc wrote: »

given that 50% of the survey responses appear to say they can't afford a levy/levy increase I think it's pretty obvious this survey has been filled out by a greater % of no voters than yes voters and is skewed. It's anonymous too so anyone can fill it out.

Not only can anyone fill it out - if you've already filled it out you can CTRL+SHIFT+DELETE and clear your browsing history and submit again and again.

Very flawed survey which deserves no credibility

While it's true, that it mightn't be 100% credible, I think we can't just ignore the survey results either. I don't know why ~38% of students voted no and if this survey helps us find out why then great. The last survey was pretty close in terms of accuracy with the referendum result. Even if it is just no voters filling in the survey; is that not what we want? To know why people voted no? To see if it was the core issues or uninformed votes?

ninty9er wrote: »

The same referendum can't be put in the same academic year.

Additionally, the potential for the student centre philanthropic donation of ~50% would have freed up the student ~50% for the other projects.

(i.e. it is my understanding that the donor has no interest in funding pitches and arena)

It could be proved a general meeting made quorom and a motion was passed to run another referendum.

The arena was half funded by the arena with the other half originally planned to come from the government. The government are no longer providing the other half. Almost certain the university were funding the other half, though I'm not 100% on that...

Polar Ice

Whoever started calling the area defined on the architects concept drawings entitled "Music Hub" as a "Nightclub" should win an award for helping fuel the "I think I'm informed, but I'm not actually informed" vote.

That one word appears to be, by far, the biggest label used by those who wished to vote no on the basis of cost as a way to articulate their reasoning for voting no. Voting no on the basis of cost is fair, but the associated arguments and discussion that stemmed from the word 'nightclub' appeared to typify the general misinformed nature of everything to do with the referendum.

This lead to an abundance of comments along the lines of "Why are they trying to build a nightclub when the WiFi doesn't work" or "The money should be spent on creating more study space instead of a Nightclub" or "The SU can't run its shops, how could it run a nightclub?"

canned_ulkc wrote: »

given that 50% of the survey responses appear to say they can't afford a levy/levy increase I think it's pretty obvious this survey has been filled out by a greater % of no voters than yes voters and is skewed. It's anonymous too so anyone can fill it out.

Very flawed survey which deserves no credibility

I didn't reach the same opinion. The descriptive meanings for each inferred that one was a subsection of the other.
It said 19% can't afford the current levy and 31% couldn't afford an increase in the levy. The 31% clearly includes the 19% since those that can't afford the current levy also wouldn't be able to afford an increased levy.

ULSU Referendum Facebook page wrote:

http://www.facebook.com/ulsu.referendum
Just to point out, the 31% who said they couldn't afford an increase includes the 19% who said they couldn't afford the current levy.

59.5% of respondents said they voted yes
36.7% of respondents said they voted no
3.8% of respondents said they didn't vote