Referendum 15th Nov

Polar Ice

I couldn't resist:

Ginge Young wrote: »

It's not even majority rules it is 66% must say yes.

Chris Martin

Listening to ULFM briefly today,
Where Kelly brought in a for and against people and thought myself,
I seriously doubt they'll get 1800 people to vote...
I know about it because of boards,
And I know the content of it due to this thread...
She played a recording on her show today and next to no one knew about it!
I'd say a big portion of people who do vote will be doing so blindly,
Unless they start advertising it massively this week,
And they need to give both sides of the story,
It's one thing saying vote yes and you'll get this this and this without saying there will be a notable increase in the student levy as well...

I don't want to get into a debate on this myself,
I'm pretty sure I know which way I will vote,
But it is my thought that it will end up void anyway due to not reaching the quota...
I think try to tackle that problem first before trying to get the 66% Yes votes...

wnolan1992

Chris Martin wrote: »

Listening to ULFM briefly today,
Where Kelly brought in a for and against people and thought myself,
I seriously doubt they'll get 1800 people to vote...
I know about it because of boards,
And I know the content of it due to this thread...
She played a recording on her show today and next to no one knew about it!
I'd say a big portion of people who do vote will be doing so blindly,
Unless they start advertising it massively this week,

One thing to note about that VoxPop was that she said she conducted it last week, so I'm willing to bet more people are aware of it at this stage.

Personally, I think more than 1800 will vote, but as you said, I think most of them will vote blindly. Anyone who's a member of a society will probably receive emails from their committees saying "X Society suggests you vote yes." (I've seen music soc posting about it on FB, but I'm sure there're others, which of course they're perfectly entitled to do), and they'll just vote without reading anything else.

But, that's Democracy I guess.

I think the C+S vote will carry it through if I'm honest.

Ginge Young

Polar Ice wrote: »

I couldn't resist:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginge Young
It's not even majority rules it is 66% must say yes.

Fair enough, didn't phrase it the best, but I still think it was clear enough, majority equals 50.01%, so even if the majority said yes it wouldn't pass if it didn't reach 66%.

As regards people not knowing about it. Those people said they never heard of it before. To be fair if they never heard of it before they haven't read any e-mails from the SU and they haven't looked on facebook and they haven't read the paper. While there may have been issues with the level of information going out there, if people themselves had never even heard of a referendum they must of been living under a rock.

I don't think there will be an issue getting the 1800 personally.

Chris Martin

I look forward to seeing the results,
Not overly sure on the outcome,
Even if they have been persuaded by their societies,
I don't see many students willingly parting with money for facilities they're unlikely to see or get to use...
66% is a big target,
You're asking for at least 1200 students to say Yes,
That's 1200 students willingly giving away their money at the start of every year...
I know not all of them will be directly affected by it,
But a good deal of them will.
In relation to the Student Centre,
They indicate about 20% or people use it currently,
And they want to increase it to 80% as is some American Uni...
I don't think I'd use it either way,
And I think I'd be part of a group in excess of 20% who think the same..
It's a lot of money to be spending on recreation...
The pitches need a lick of paint alright and a couple of nets,
€20 million euro though (that us students will be putting towards it) or even the entire €40 million,
I'd like to see a rough breakdown of it before securing my vote..

wnolan1992

Articles from both perspectives up on An Focal:

Yes: http://www.anfocal.ie/clubs-socs/5998/ul-referendum-a-campus-students-deserve

No: http://www.anfocal.ie/comment/6078/opinion-vote-no-in-the-ulsu-referendum

Stephen_Byrne

Thomond Student Times explanation.

Apologies to all for the downtime, which was caused by a catastrophic updating of Joomla. But with thanks to our allstar Web legend, Ciaran Phillips (4th year mmpt) we're back up. Comments will be working later this evening.


http://www.thomondstudenttimes.com/index.php/features/232-referendumexplainer

wnolan1992

Stephen_Byrne wrote: »

Thomond Student Times explanation.

Apologies to all for the downtime, which was caused by a catastrophic updating of Joomla. But with thanks to our allstar Web legend, Ciaran Phillips (4th year mmpt) we're back up. Comments will be working later this evening.


http://www.thomondstudenttimes.com/index.php/features/232-referendumexplainer

Absolutely fantastic piece. Well done lads.

canned_ulkc

Jester252 wrote: »

While I understand why its need for future expansion. I just feel the size will leave the SU looking deserted. I don't understand why office space is an issue some simple reworking could fix that. Some of the offices in the SU are just huge. Three lectures could use the bottom corner office no problem and there are lecture in the university that are using it. I'm also wondering what the venue will do to the current pubs on campus or would one of them move into the venue.
I'm sorry I just don't buy the lack of rooms in the university to use. For personal experience I can find an empty class room no problem. I know that Clubs and Socs need to book rooms and require special needs for said rooms. Is there a problem between the University and the Union/C&S?
While I would like to see the Union expand and it should be done as soon as possible. I just feel the jump planned is too big. Granted I will vote yes if they include fixing the broken lock in the men toilets in the referendum.

I like this - it's the simple things!

Personally I think the difference here is between what you (and a good few) think is needed versus what is being proposed.
The thing is, this is a major project and the reality is that if it passes and it's open, there will still be people say that it's big or whatever. This is because nothing that gets built on this scale, with the target of serving so many, is built to current needs. They have to consider future growth in use and in numbers.
If you were to imagine that the usage of a new student centre would be the current usage + a % of increase in new students then of course it would be pretty much pointless.
By it's nature, the point of this is to grow the availability of student-centric facilities. So by building it, you immediately increase the number of people for which you cater. That, plus the growth in student numbers means that such a project needs a lifespan which accounts for the above.
The question is - why build it all now? Well, this is where there is kind of a perverse version of the law of diminishing returns comes in.
By building a half-baked move right now it means that you can start off with the equivalent of a snug and then hope to develop this to a venue later. It's not a case of scaling up - that's why you would start with a snug attached to an SU rather than a venue attached to an SU (and IMO the SU in the current designs probably houses about 1/8 of the space at most)
To me, this is a massive opportunity. I think I've been questioning what the No vote is about - I've wondered how people can even consider voting No. But to some extent I get it now. I still am very firmly comfortable with advocating a Yes vote given the benefits of the project.

At the end of the day, some discomfort comes with moving into new territory. If that's the area through which people are uncomfortable then it's very much worth looking at other Uni's which have similar projects in action.

reunion

A new student centre means one with fire exits that aren't pad-locked!

Cadroc

Excellent debate, thought the Yes camp put forward a great argument... when he was allowed talk. The No camp just seemed to shout over the speaker when he disagreed and unintentionally insult his opposition, even when talking to Moursy and Rockett.

All in all I was left with a sense that the No Speaker Richard disliked the idea of democracy more so than the plans, which he agreed with in theory. The yes speaker, Kennedy used the facts and put forward his argument as well as was possible when being faced with strong opposition. All in all two very good arguments, but I just felt the yes argument was calmer and a better argument.

I thought Kelly and Sadhbh were both excellent mediators as well, not seeming to favour either side. Very professional!

I'm definitely in the Yes camp at this stage after looking at both arguments. It's ok saying that the increase is a big change, but it's a necessary evil. Adam made a great point on the show saying that they protested a raise in the Student Contribution charge because student's get nothing from an increase in the fees. They have actually lost out on tutorial hours and services. With the increase in the levy, they will reap the rewards from what they pay in the future, and they will see things changing almost instantly.

Ruan DMC

There is an argument going around in relation on whether it is ethical or not to to commit future students to a Levy.

I have listened(2.5 hours!!) to this argument in detail which is being made by Richard. The argument questions the ideals on which our democratic system is based. Such a view would also mean that we would not be able to vote in a general election which commits our u18's to a government which will be in power after they are 18. It would also mean we couldn't vote on a tax system that commits our younger generation to. The short version is that you cant vote to commit someone else to something. In an ideal world this would be great. But in this world things would very unprogressive as things couldn't happen. What actually happens now is that a vote is put to the public, just like the ref on sat, and people make an informed decision on whether the benefits outweigh the negatives and if it is worth passing. This vote then commits future generations to this decision if passed. It is a compromised process. It allows for a democratic decision to be made but it also allows for progress.

So this is what we have here. We have a vote to progress our student facilities so that students for the next 50 years will benefit.

To look at it objectively - We have all been subject to past students votes. We have been subject to paying for Arena for example. I ask myself am i happy that other students committed me to paying the current levy? Am i happy to pay the current levy so that i and my colleges can use the great facilities. Am i happy to pay the levy that helps improve the reputation of this college? I AM! I am happy that other took an informed decision on my behalf in order that the student bosy could benefit from them.

I then ask myself if i was a student in 15 years time, would i be happy to pay fot the facilities being proposed. I AM! I then ask, would the majority of students benefit from the new facilities and have the same view on paying as i do? I AM(The student centre is designed so that 80% of students use it on a weekly basis!)

So the question that needs to be answered on thursday is "Is it justified to have students paying 130/150€ to construct, the Arena Extension, The New Students Centre and redevelop Maguires?"

Jester252

Does anybody have a link to the debate?

wnolan1992

Jester252 wrote: »

Does anybody have a link to the debate?

Anseo.

itsoktosayno

This is a very typical approach from an establishment. They take something that will benefit them (more money) and use bribery, guilt, coersion and deceit to get their way. At the face of it, the ULSU is presenting a fairly straightforward argument - do you want to make a contract on behalf of future students that they contribute 170 euro extra to fund a football pitch and some buildings?

Essentially the yes argument think it's completely fair and rational for students of today to make that decision for them. In what other instances would you allow a third party sign you up for a 4 year contract (the contract will actually last 20 years so even if you do a ginge and stay in college for 8 years that could be a 1000 quid).

What the yes argument won't accept that a much MORE democratic and MORE fair solution would be to have an opt out opportunity at registration. Every september you can tick a box to say No, I won't pay for this. The rationale for doing is your own, but for some people 170 euro is a lot of money to go into the sack of an organisation that has demostrated zero previous record of managing funds properly.

The question was asked, why do we have to vote on all three establishments at the same time? The answer from the ULSU was to try and get them all passed based on tail gating. Some people might think it prudent to consign the future up for repair to the football pitch or new SU building but not everyone sees the benefit of all three. The SU's approach is to hoodwink people and coerece them into voting all or none.

MY reluctance and hesistancy is based on the fact that the whole thing could have been done more democratically and more fairly, the SU and UL to a certain extent has terrible track record in such ventures, there is no guarantees or controls on the future allocation of student raised funds, only vague promises that aren't worth the paper they're not written on. In conjunction, I don't think we need a new SU or a new anything, I don't think the pitches need repair.

wnolan1992

itsoktosayno wrote: »

This is a very typical approach from an establishment. They take something that will benefit them (more money) and use bribery, guilt, coersion and deceit to get their way. At the face of it, the ULSU is presenting a fairly straightforward argument - do you want to make a contract on behalf of future students that they contribute 170 euro extra to fund a football pitch and some buildings?

Essentially the yes argument think it's completely fair and rational for students of today to make that decision for them. In what other instances would you allow a third party sign you up for a 4 year contract (the contract will actually last 20 years so even if you do a ginge and stay in college for 8 years that could be a 1000 quid).

What the yes argument won't accept that a much MORE democratic and MORE fair solution would be to have an opt out opportunity at registration. Every september you can tick a box to say No, I won't pay for this. The rationale for doing is your own, but for some people 170 euro is a lot of money to go into the sack of an organisation that has demostrated zero previous record of managing funds properly.

The question was asked, why do we have to vote on all three establishments at the same time? The answer from the ULSU was to try and get them all passed based on tail gating. Some people might think it prudent to consign the future up for repair to the football pitch or new SU building but not everyone sees the benefit of all three. The SU's approach is to hoodwink people and coerece them into voting all or none.

MY reluctance and hesistancy is based on the fact that the whole thing could have been done more democratically and more fairly, the SU and UL to a certain extent has terrible track record in such ventures, there is no guarantees or controls on the future allocation of student raised funds, only vague promises that aren't worth the paper they're not written on. In conjunction, I don't think we need a new SU or a new anything, I don't think the pitches need repair.

The "subtle" dig at Ginge gave you away there cambridge/sid. :P

Your idea of having an opt out each year is unworkable. The loan would need to be paid back each year at the same rate, and you'd end up with an unstable stream of income that wouldn't be guaranteed each year. Wouldn't work.

I find it funny that you think the pitches don't need upgrading. In fact, you're the first person on either side to come out with that statement.

itsoktosayno

I don't know who you are referring to nor do I accept your insinuations. However I will address your points:

The students union in Ireland's only legitimate university, The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin, were able to implement a student capitaiton charge for a contribution to the construction of a Sports Centre which was voluntary.

Because the vast majority of the funds are not coming from the student levy, it is no means impossible or unfeasable to have an opt out.

I've played in worse pitches, roll up your sleeves and get a good pair of boots that's all you need .

freyners

itsoktosayno wrote: »

I don't know who you are referring to nor do I accept your insinuations. However I will address your points:

The students union in Ireland's only legitimate university, The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin, were able to implement a student capitaiton charge for a contribution to the construction of a Sports Centre which was voluntary.

Because the vast majority of the funds are not coming from the student levy, it is no means impossible or unfeasable to have an opt out.

I've played in worse pitches, roll up your sleeves and get a good pair of boots that's all you need .

dead giveaway who you are anyways

on the pitches thing, you just lost any credibility you've had. the injury list resulting from playing on that surface in my own club is shocking enough. Strangely enough since we moved to the astros it has gone way down

wnolan1992

freyners wrote: »

dead giveaway who you are anyways

on the pitches thing, you just lost any credibility you've had. the injury list resulting from playing on that surface in my own club is shocking enough. Strangely enough since we moved to the astros it has gone way down

Cue the "ye need to man up" comment... :rolleyes: :P

freyners

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Cue the "ye need to man up" comment... :rolleyes: :P

im expecting a "grow a pair to go with it";)

itsoktosayno

what injuries

freyners

itsoktosayno wrote: »

what injuries

mainly ankle injuries from trying to run in that quagmire, also you have injuries arising from practicing scrums and mauls because the surface isnt good enuf, people slipping and falling. Try having a scrum collapse (repeatedly) on top of you because people cannot get a grip in the ground.

Tackling is also off the cards because the field gets so wet puddles form everywhere and you run the risk of someone not being able to breath if they get their head stuck down in a puddle (before we get a smart ass comment on this, you cant always see them)

thats just a rugby club, its impossible for clubs like soccer or hurling to practice on it

canned_ulkc

Ruan DMC wrote: »

There is an argument going around in relation on whether it is ethical or not to to commit future students to a Levy.

I have listened(2.5 hours!!) to this argument in detail which is being made by Richard. The argument questions the ideals on which our democratic system is based. Such a view would also mean that we would not be able to vote in a general election which commits our u18's to a government which will be in power after they are 18. It would also mean we couldn't vote on a tax system that commits our younger generation to. The short version is that you cant vote to commit someone else to something. In an ideal world this would be great. But in this world things would very unprogressive as things couldn't happen. What actually happens now is that a vote is put to the public, just like the ref on sat, and people make an informed decision on whether the benefits outweigh the negatives and if it is worth passing. This vote then commits future generations to this decision if passed. It is a compromised process. It allows for a democratic decision to be made but it also allows for progress.

So this is what we have here. We have a vote to progress our student facilities so that students for the next 50 years will benefit.

To look at it objectively - We have all been subject to past students votes. We have been subject to paying for Arena for example. I ask myself am i happy that other students committed me to paying the current levy? Am i happy to pay the current levy so that i and my colleges can use the great facilities. Am i happy to pay the levy that helps improve the reputation of this college? I AM! I am happy that other took an informed decision on my behalf in order that the student bosy could benefit from them.

I then ask myself if i was a student in 15 years time, would i be happy to pay fot the facilities being proposed. I AM! I then ask, would the majority of students benefit from the new facilities and have the same view on paying as i do? I AM(The student centre is designed so that 80% of students use it on a weekly basis!)

So the question that needs to be answered on thursday is "Is it justified to have students paying 130/150€ to construct, the Arena Extension, The New Students Centre and redevelop Maguires?"

I agree - I don't really understand this argument that Richie is putting forward. It's flawed for a few reasons IMO.

First, as you've pointed out, it's pretty much like saying that nobody has any right to vote at all really. I'd like to give an extreme example but it'd be too much probably.....

Second, there is no difference between what Richard is saying and asking the question: "What right do the current students have to deny future students these facilities?"

The idea that it's coercion really to me just has no legs either.

We are where we are and this is the method through which the SU constitution works. People have a voice now and I hope will make the decision based on whether they would like to see the facilities rather than presuming to know what others are thinking and feeling.

Chimaera

There's a (very) cynical view that can be taken on this referendum as a whole:

There's been a pressing (and justified need) for the upgrades to the sports facilities between Maguires and the Arena.

The current SU building could be improved upon. Idea is hatched for massive new Student Centre.

The cost and scale of the student centre is likely to make it a hard sell to the student body as a whole.

Clubs and socs can certainly be persuaded to bring out a yes vote for the sports facilities.

So bundle all three projects into one referendum question and avoid telling the general student population too much about it. Clubs and socs will mobilise a yes vote for the sports facilities and bring in the student centre with it.

There had been a terrible lack of publicity for this project among the general student body in the run-up to the original polling date, and its passing on that date would have depended heavily on the C&S vote.

Even now, most of the publicity and yes campaigning seems to be from and on behalf of C&S. There is not so much being said for how the student centre will benefit the ordinary student who has no interest in being part of a club or society, and little more interest in being involved with the union in general.

This is a cynical viewpoint, and one I don't hold (not entirely anyway) but it's easy to see how it can be constructed from the way the campaign has run so far.

canned_ulkc

It is a (very) cynical viewpoint. But to argue that there is not much info out there is disingenuous. There is a lot out there. There's An Focal, TST and debates on ulfm and the FB pages available too.

If you're not informed, it's pretty much down to not looking for the info. To spoonfeed info to people is probably insulting their intelligence too.

As regards lumping this as a C&S project - there is nothing stopping (and never has been) any student or group of students starting their own club and/or society. The idea that C&S facilities are for nobody else is a pretty weak argument too. The boathouse has been used for events by students who are not involved in C&S and given that all students paid for it it surprises me that it hasn't been used in a wider way. I don't think any of the constituent clubs would ever be so arrogant to presume that the boathouse is theirs and theirs alone.

Just looking at the plans for the student centre itself will answer a lot of questions around how useful it will be to the student body.

There will also be debates going on on the day. Come along and challenge people on whatever you like.

sceptre

You know, if you feed the returning trolls, they feel encouraged when they run out of Internet porn and come back for more. Re-reg banned as before. I'm leaving the posts in this thread (and this thread only) as there's a referendum on this week.

Chimaera

there is nothing stopping (and never has been) any student or group of students starting their own club and/or society. The idea that C&S facilities are for nobody else is a pretty weak argument too.

I'm well aware of that. I've been involved in founding a club. I'm not making the argument that C&S facilities are not for anyone else.

The argument is that no-one is demonstrating what these facilities offer to the student who has no wish to set up a club or society, or join an existing one. This student is one of nearly 9000 (according to the figures put up on UL Wolves facebook page earlier today: total of 12239 students eligible to vote, 3300 are mentioned as being C&S members). That's not a small number, and no-one is doing much to appeal to those that I can see.

I've read a lot of the articles in TST and An Focal, and the general push from those has been that these projects will be great for Clubs and Societies. Most of this coverage has only emerged since it was announced that the referendum was being postponed by a week.

bazkennedy

The argument is that no-one is demonstrating what these facilities offer to the student who has no wish to set up a club or society, or join an existing one.

from the ulwoves website

• Large scale Student Entertainment / Gig Venue with Bar
• Shops and other retail outlets
• Cinema
• Chillout/Games Rooms

ChrisOF

bazkennedy wrote: »

from the ulwoves website

• Large scale Student Entertainment / Gig Venue with Bar
• Shops and other retail outlets
• Cinema
• Chillout/Games Rooms

And 'breakout' work areas/group work areas

wnolan1992

bazkennedy wrote: »

from the ulwoves website

• Large scale Student Entertainment / Gig Venue with Bar
• Shops and other retail outlets
• Cinema
• Chillout/Games Rooms

I don't think Chimaera was saying there weren't benefits to the wider student body, just that no one was really highlighting these benefits to a wider audience. (Could completely have misinterpreted, but that was the impression I got.)

The bulk of the yes campaign is Clubs and Socs saying why this will be a huge benefit to Clubs and Socs. So I tend to believe that the majority of people who vote yes on Thursday will be C+S people voting for C+S, whereas those who currently are not part of C+S probably won't vote. (but I could be proven wrong)