Referendum 15th Nov

TheGunns

They knew from the get go they needed 66% of the vote and they didnt get it. So the campaign failed.It wouldve probably passed if they had held it on the original date as I would think the majority of people who only found out on Thursday voted no so a lower turnout I think would have helped the yes side.

Its dead for the time being as any new vote on it would have to take place next semester or even after and I would think thats too late to increase the fees for the following year.

Should be left alone and not touched for another year or two at least, the result and further referendums would only become a joke if they backtrack to try get the vote they want. And as was said earlier, if it was the other way around we wouldnt be talking about trying to change the outcome.

canned_ulkc

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Well here's my suggestion: spend Chuck's €20m on extending the library and improving the ulwireless network around the college - things that really need to be done at this time.

MajesticDonkey - Unfortunately Chuck's money was not there to be put at whatever you want to put it to.

Chuck's money wasn't there at all in fact. This referendum was about showing Atlantic Philanthropies (who are expected to have wound down all their project donations by next year) that there is commitment from the UL community in the form of funding to which the normal mechanism is that money raised gets matched by Chuck's readies.

With this referendum defeated, the student population has said that they are not willing to put in money for these projects and so that commitment doesn't exist, therefore there is no access to AP's money.

It seems to be a common misconception - and usually put forward by people who claim to have not been informed yet if they went to one of the 5 information meetings they would know that.

canned_ulkc

thomond2006 wrote: »

How much money did the SU/University spend on the planning, architectual work etc? That's dead money now...

Funnily enough, some on the No side seem to suggest that there should have been more dead money in it.... paradox?


Personally, I think that there are a couple of things I wish the architect who drew up the student centre plans didn't do.

First, labeling the current lecture hall as a cinema had a lot of people asking questions. Second, sticking in dancers and lights suggested "nightclub" despite the fact it was labeled as a VENUE.

Both of these should have been tagged as multi-use areas given that's the truth of them. Perhaps the SU could have been better about getting out information on the multitude of clubs and societies who made submissions for such spaces in order to facilitate their already restricted growth.

J_E

The biggest disappointment is just that it failed to even reach a quota for a yes or no. That's the main issue here. Maybe if more students had even known there was such a referendum and were given clearer info it would have passed, and yes, that does mean spoonfeeding them the info in a very basic way, otherwise they're lost. Even after the vote from the comments on the ULSU Facebook page it was still clear a lot of people were confused on what the money was allocated to or why it couldn't just be used to patch holes in the Schrodinger, Library, etc.

I would have voted yes (couldn't this year) but still would have berated the SU for a poor start. There's no point pulling out all the stops in the last minute. That's what limited the vote most, a lack of awareness all around. You have to see it from the perspective of a student not affiliated with the SU/C&S as well as someone who is actively involved and already knows more than enough about the referendum to make their mind up. It's just highly frustrating considering this was an important project for many people, just feels like they blew it.

SVCFan

It is sad to see the reaction to this vote. If you voted Yes, you do have reason to feel upset at the outcome. Talk has now moved to why a 2/3 threshold is in place for our referendum's. It did not seem to be an issue when the Referendum was proposed. The SU and C&S council never uttered a statement on the voting procedure in place. I am glad the SU campaign finally got going, as they had an extremely light campaign before the original date. It seems as if they realised that they could not just rely on a loyal turnout of their followers to pass this motion.

The activities of the SU this semester leave a lot to be desired. I was at the AGM earlier in the semester when they tried to ambush the editor of An Focal. To add to this, they failed yet again to reach quorum, which leaves vital issues held over until next semester. Their advertising campaign for these events have been shockingly inept. Putting 3 proposals onto one ballot was bad enough, but Moursy then proceeded to confirm what everyone already knew, that the SU would have trouble passing the proposals individually. The fact that the campaign for a YES vote did not kick into gear until the week after the original date of polling was incredible.

The YES side are now seeking to vilify the NO side. The reason for so many misconceptions about this referendum is that the SU refused to engage until the very end. They had weeks to put their point across and yet chose the final week to try and guilt people into a decision they liked. Whatever the reasons people had for voting NO, it is unfair to deride them as being selfish and petty. Throwing out remarks like some people have on Facebook has made them look selfish and petty.

I personally never became too involved with the SU or C&S in my time in UL and as such will admit that I am not overly sympathetic to some of your issues. But you have to take into account that there are a lot of students here who can barely afford to be here. They are working to earn degrees, while having part-time jobs which mean they do not have as much free time as other students. It would be great to improve the university, but at the end of the day, it is an academic institution. The Library should be expanded to cater for the increased student population. There are many other things which could be done to improve the overall experience for students. If it is selfish to vote NO for these reasons, then it must also be selfish to have voted YES. People who have an awful lot less have managed to make do, so why can't the SU?

Nockz

No one that I know of in C&S has called or implied the person voting no was selfish. Come on now.

SVCFan

Read the comments on the ULSU Facebook page and tell me if you cannot see the word selfish posted in relation to the NO campaign.

Gael23

Is there other ways in which the philanthropic money can be spent? Extending the Library or the arena?

SVCFan

Personally I think it is a joke that there is 2/3 majority required to pass these things in the first place. That, as well as the SU attitude to the student body needs to be changed otherwise the same arguments will keep cropping up time and time again, leaving everybody frustrated.

canned_ulkc

I see the word "selfish" there twice - the second time it's not used in any kind of insult.

The first time, I can't agree with the poster. I can't agree either that one post from someone who's relationship with ULSU is unknown (to me) represents the feelings of anyone but himself and is disingenuous to suggest it is.

Nockz

The ones calling people selfish must have been deleted. I'm not seeing anything.

Slugs

Whether someone hasn't come right out and said it, it has been implied numerous times. How often has the argument, "Sure it won't benefit you now, but someone before paid these fees so you could have the services that you currently have?" been heard/read on the various forums and public domain? It has been said outright, but you can't deny the emotional blackmail does not derisively insinuate selfishness on the No side's part.

Gael23

canned_ulkc wrote: »

I see the word "selfish" there twice - the second time it's not used in any kind of insult.

The first time, I can't agree with the poster. I can't agree either that one post from someone who's relationship with ULSU is unknown (to me) represents the feelings of anyone but himself and is disingenuous to suggest it is.

There are some people in c&s who pushed it strongly, and the opinions of those people were totally one sided in favour of yes and seem to think the no sides claims were not valid, hence the claims of selfishness.

canned_ulkc

ryanf1 wrote: »

Is there other ways in which the philanthropic money can be spent? Extending the Library or the arena?

This has been answered a LOT already Ryan - the philanthropic money is not sitting in a UL account waiting to be spent. The library money is a separate issue.

The referendum passing would have facilitated the release of monies for the project covered by the vote. It was turned down. The 5% shortfall effectively waved goodbye to up to €25,000,000 potential of philanthropic monies from a source that is expected not to be there from next year on.

Kelefants

SVCFan wrote: »

It is sad to see the reaction to this vote. If you voted Yes, you do have reason to feel upset at the outcome. Talk has now moved to why a 2/3 threshold is in place for our referendum's. It did not seem to be an issue when the Referendum was proposed. The SU and C&S council never uttered a statement on the voting procedure in place. I am glad the SU campaign finally got going, as they had an extremely light campaign before the original date. It seems as if they realised that they could not just rely on a loyal turnout of their followers to pass this motion.

The activities of the SU this semester leave a lot to be desired. I was at the AGM earlier in the semester when they tried to ambush the editor of An Focal. To add to this, they failed yet again to reach quorum, which leaves vital issues held over until next semester. Their advertising campaign for these events have been shockingly inept. Putting 3 proposals onto one ballot was bad enough, but Moursy then proceeded to confirm what everyone already knew, that the SU would have trouble passing the proposals individually. The fact that the campaign for a YES vote did not kick into gear until the week after the original date of polling was incredible.

The YES side are now seeking to vilify the NO side. The reason for so many misconceptions about this referendum is that the SU refused to engage until the very end. They had weeks to put their point across and yet chose the final week to try and guilt people into a decision they liked. Whatever the reasons people had for voting NO, it is unfair to deride them as being selfish and petty. Throwing out remarks like some people have on Facebook has made them look selfish and petty.

I personally never became too involved with the SU or C&S in my time in UL and as such will admit that I am not overly sympathetic to some of your issues. But you have to take into account that there are a lot of students here who can barely afford to be here. They are working to earn degrees, while having part-time jobs which mean they do not have as much free time as other students. It would be great to improve the university, but at the end of the day, it is an academic institution. The Library should be expanded to cater for the increased student population. There are many other things which could be done to improve the overall experience for students. If it is selfish to vote NO for these reasons, then it must also be selfish to have voted YES. People who have an awful lot less have managed to make do, so why can't the SU?

I have no problem with people voting no as they believe they can't afford it, I think that is a good reason to vote no and I respect that. My issue is, and where I see selfishness is when you look at the reasons some people gave 'I won't be around when it's finished' and certain clubs suggesting 'we're not being looked after so no one should'. It's a shame though.

Some of the views I heard from the NO campaign were some I really had to consider before throwing myself into the YES campaign. At the end of the day I think it is absolutely fantastic to have seen this much involvement in something SU related. Whatever your views are of the SU, this is a major achievement. I'm disappointed with the result but proud at how democratic it was and how everyone could voice their opinions.

SVCFan

To be fair to the SU, they have been scrubbing comments from their Facebook account from both the YES and NO sides.

Kelefants

canned_ulkc wrote: »

This has been answered a LOT already Ryan - the philanthropic money is not sitting in a UL account waiting to be spent. The library money is a separate issue.

The referendum passing would have facilitated the release of monies for the project covered by the vote. It was turned down. The 5% shortfall effectively waved goodbye to up to €25,000,000 potential of philanthropic monies from a source that is expected not to be there from next year on.

There are also plans already to do up the library, which were mentioned at the Q&A session with the board members of the Arena. There is currently a legal issue I believe from something either Derek or Ruan posted. They are working to do it up but they've run into problems, not money problems though.

wnolan1992

Random thought.

What would people think of a 40 year levy of €72, increasing to €90 when the centre opens and then rising or falling with inflation thereafter?

canned_ulkc

ryanf1 wrote: »

There are some people in c&s who pushed it strongly, and the opinions of those people were totally one sided in favour of yes and seem to think the no sides claims were not valid, hence the claims of selfishness.

I was in the Hub for a significant portion of the day and was out campaigning for a chunk of it too. In every interaction I saw from any campaigners, the arguments of the no side were acknowledged and accepted.

I wouldn't be on board with the idea of even suggesting people being selfish at all. I'm not sure that was ever anyone's intent but I'm with you on calling people on things like that.

To me, I would certainly have said to people about previous students making contributions to projects they never saw. It was never my intent to suggest selfishness in that. Mostly, I thought it was a nicer way of talking with people than other ways of addressing the often stated "What has the SU ever done for us?"

And I heard that said on the day - not tongue in cheek or for a joke either. The funny thing was that it was upstairs in the pool room in the student centre - not a hint of irony.

Nockz

40 years is a joke of a loan payment. The building will have probably become the New New Medical Center by then.

Polar Ice

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Random thought.

What would people think of a 40 year levy of €72, increasing to €90 when the centre opens and then rising or falling with inflation thereafter?

There's a few problems with very long repayment time frames.

• The longer the repayment time frame, the more you're going to be paying in interest rather than actually paying against the principle.
• It means it would take longer before another similar type project could be initiated in the future.
• You don't want to be paying for something for one purpose if it's purpose changes in the future. (The university is 40 years old now. In another 40 years things could be completely different again. You don't want to be paying for something if it's usage changes in the future)

The biggest problem however is you haven't done the maths. If you wanted a 40 year repayment time frame, your basic levy would need to be about 100 euro, before adding the 20 euro operational levy

The 20 euro operational levy doesn't fall. It's pegged against the consumer price index or 2%, whichever is greater (long run it would average about 3-3.5%). It allows for better forecasting of future cash flows.

What do I think of your proposal? Your proposal funds about 30% less and lasts for twice as long... You get substantially less and you're making repayments for half of someone's lifetime.

wnolan1992

Polar Ice wrote: »

The biggest problem however is you haven't done the maths.

You're 100% correct on that. :P



Hey, I said it was random!

Polar Ice

Just to add to my above post, you'd have to be very careful if you took a loan and opted to have low payments at the start.

In the case of a loan this size, if people were paying 72 euro per year you'd NEVER repay the loan (literally, not figuratively)

Looking back at previous comments:

reunion wrote: »

I have been thinking, is it possible to start at €72 next year (the current charge), €92 the year after, €112 year 3 and then €130 the year the new Student Centre would open (it would be mid-way during that year it would be open) and then €150 from then on? It would be an ease into it instead of a giant leap increase of €78 from next year. We would still get the money and it would only add about 2 years to the loan repayment.

You could do something like that, it adds about 1-2 years to the total repayment period.
A HUGE word of warning though because people don't seem to like maths around here. On a loan value of that size, making a few assumptions on stuff like interest rates and the number of students in the university, Any levy under about 90 euro per year is pointless on a loan of that value because you simply aren't paying back any principle on the loan - you're just paying interest. At 90 euros all you're actually doing is repaying all the interest, anything under about 90 euro and it's kinda like pointlessly throwing money at someone.

Gael23

Slugs wrote: »

Whether someone hasn't come right out and said it, it has been implied numerous times. How often has the argument, "Sure it won't benefit you now, but someone before paid these fees so you could have the services that you currently have?" been heard/read on the various forums and public domain? It has been said outright, but you can't deny the emotional blackmail does not derisively insinuate selfishness on the No side's part.

Who are you accusing of blackmail?

canned_ulkc

SVCFan wrote: »

To be fair to the SU, they have been scrubbing comments from their Facebook account from both the YES and NO sides.

That's not true. They have replied on this accusation as being to do with spam filtering due toitey****ybastardy type language being used

SVCFan

canned_ulkc wrote: »

That's not true. They have replied on this accusation as being to do with spam filtering due toitey****ybastardy type language being used

I literally have no idea what "toitey****ybastardy" is. If you are going to fact check people, then it is usually a good idea to make your point a bit more clearly. Seeing as you are an authority on everything, I think we should all direct future questions to you

canned_ulkc

It was me trying to be funny (and failing) by not checking what I wrote...

Bad language being filtered out basically. Keith Quinlan has explained this on the thread on FB already.

It's not a case of fact checking, I just don't like the idea of something that isn't true propagating into some big issue when it actually isn't.

As for me being an authority on everything. I wish!

SVCFan

Fair Enough

J_E

The plot thickens.

http://www.anfocal.ie/news/6339/talks-to-hold-new-referendum

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. On the subject of turnout, again I feel it was ULSU's own problem if they botched up the promotion at the start of the campaign and failed to get the turnout they wanted.

wnolan1992

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