2014 Referendum

Moxy Shazbot

Cael Rowley wrote: »

this is supposed to be a democratic decision and we the students voted no last year because the majority of us have no use for the arena or a new pitch.

Technically wrong. It was like 64% Yes and 36% no but it has to be more than 66%. So ya, you're wrong.

People pursuing sports based courses always seem get given more than those pursuing academic courses.

Evidence please. I beg of you. Considering the majority of research is pumped into science and engineering..

instead of charging everyone for these facilities hold a vote to charge those only who would use them or have the charge upgrade something that would be beneficial for all.

Have you ever used the student courtyard, arena and or boat house? All paid for by people who never got to use it.

You're not really up there in the ole logic.

Moxy Shazbot

Ignore my response above I read as far as that comment and had to respond. Only to realise Chimera had already done so.

Just because you don't agree with it or find figures discerning doesn't mean it's not correct.

DJCR

As a Graduate I'm being completely selfish in asking this as I will never have to pay, though I did leave my bit of the boathouse behind me.

Anywho, the way I look at it, the better the UL campus gets and the better access to facilities students have, the better prestige and (arguably) the better/more students UL will attract from abroad.

As most of you probably know there is a third level funding crisis in this country and one way of raising funds is to attract foreign students who pay top bucks to learn in our fabulous establishments.

The more foreign students we attract, the better for all our Irish students as well as they get to benefit from the increased funds in the form of increased tutorials, small classes etc.

Do I believe for one minute people will solely base their decision on these specific facilities, nope. But it may tip the balance in ULs favor and in this climate, every little helps. Also don't forget UL is advertised as Irelands' Sporting Campus.

In addition, the more prestigious and attractive UL gets, the more prestigious and attractive our qualifications from there become. Don't be fooled there is snobbery out there and everyone wants to finish top of the table.

So there is an outside the box, even if you don't use it you may still benefit from it reason for voting yes. To be fair the yes campaign has been well run and had ticked all the really good reasons for doing it.

Nice to see people keeping campaign promises.

Moxy Shazbot

^This +1

I'm damn proud to be from UL and to have bragging rights for the biggest campus in Ireland and we're only 40 years old.

Gael23

I was going to vote No but now I think I've changed my mind.
I voted No last time because I felt that €130 was way too much to ask but this is around the same level as the previous levy so is much more bearable. Im in 4th year so will never have to pay it either way.

Dante on Fire

Hello voters!

As you may be aware the voting is now live you can vote here:

VOTE

To aid you in your vote please take a look at the information campaign:

INFO

Made up your mind? Swerving to one side? take a look at the pages below for the debate.

YES

&

NO

Please make an informed decision and the very best of luck to the teams involved in all the campaigns and thank you for casting your vote.

Paddy
VP/Academic

Current VOTE count: 1197

VoteUL14

I find it a joke that there is a referendum on campus and only one side of the argument is being shoved in our faces.

For it to be a FAIR and EQUAL referendum should not BOTH sides being equally represented on campus?


It was only yesterday that I started to see the NO side of the argument trickle through on Facebook. Only after an ERB meeting, were others complaining that it was not an EQUAL referendum?


For the Student Body to make an INFORMED choice today they should have been presented with ALL the facts from BOTH sides not just one side that seems to be pushed pushed pushed by Clubs and Societies individuals. Whom I feel will be the only ones to benefit in the long run if the referendum goes through.

How will non Clubs and Societies orientated students benefit? Students that use the current climbing wall, students who don't play hurling (ie hurling walls), those that simple don't play sports; how will an extra 67 euro benefit them??

Honest question.

Ginge Young

VoteUL14 wrote: »

I find it a joke that there is a referendum on campus and only one side of the argument is being shoved in our faces.

For it to be a FAIR and EQUAL referendum should not BOTH sides being equally represented on campus?


It was only yesterday that I started to see the NO side of the argument trickle through on Facebook. Only after an ERB meeting, were others complaining that it was not an EQUAL referendum?


For the Student Body to make an INFORMED choice today they should have been presented with ALL the facts from BOTH sides not just one side that seems to be pushed pushed pushed by Clubs and Societies individuals. Whom I feel will be the only ones to benefit in the long run if the referendum goes through.

How will non Clubs and Societies orientated students benefit? Students that use the current climbing wall, students who don't play hurling (ie hurling walls), those that simple don't play sports; how will an extra 67 euro benefit them??

Honest question.

Just to be clear there was funding made available for three campaigns.

1) The Information Campaign - Which is being run by the SU.
2) The Yes Campaign - Which is being run by a wide variety of people.
3) The No Campaign - They are there but I can't offer much more on it.

While I am for a fair and equal - one side cannot be punished simply as it has put a lot of time into gathering the bodies and spending the time organising.

I respect that individuals came forward for a no campaign - but essentially the No side is, you will save 67 euro. Even in a lecture where there was nobody from the No campaign the lecturer had asked for someone to come forward, no one did, and I even said that so people were aware.

Edit: Sorry to clarify your last point. The everyday UL student will benefit through contributing to the design of the Student Centre, which can include many much needed facilities that people are looking for - such as Study Rooms, Group Work Rooms, Chill out Areas, Student Kitchen etc. The possibilities are endless.

The ungrade to Maguires will provide flood-lit areas where people can go running in the evenings (not just Clubs/Socs people).

The extension to the Arena is also valuable not only to C&S but also the general student members who will have other facilities available to them.

(Hope that clarifies a bit more).

Doubt Edit: Sorry if the post is rushed, I'm campaigning at the moment as well and talking to people. So trying to keep tabs on everything.

freyners

VoteUL14 wrote: »

I find it a joke that there is a referendum on campus and only one side of the argument is being shoved in our faces.

For it to be a FAIR and EQUAL referendum should not BOTH sides being equally represented on campus?


It was only yesterday that I started to see the NO side of the argument trickle through on Facebook. Only after an ERB meeting, were others complaining that it was not an EQUAL referendum?


For the Student Body to make an INFORMED choice today they should have been presented with ALL the facts from BOTH sides not just one side that seems to be pushed pushed pushed by Clubs and Societies individuals. Whom I feel will be the only ones to benefit in the long run if the referendum goes through.

How will non Clubs and Societies orientated students benefit? Students that use the current climbing wall, students who don't play hurling (ie hurling walls), those that simple don't play sports; how will an extra 67 euro benefit them??

Honest question.

Simply put, UL wants to market itself as a first class university then it needs to have first class facilities in all areas, be it education facilities such as the new building beside the MSSI, or these new facilities. These facilities have the potential to attract new students, increasing numbers on campus, which leads to greater funding for UL to invest in other areas.

Also there is a NO campaign, it might no be visible but thats hardly the fault of those pushing the yes vote

VoteUL14

freyners wrote: »

Simply put, UL wants to market itself as a first class university then it needs to have first class facilities in all areas, be it education facilities such as the new building beside the MSSI, or these new facilities. These facilities have the potential to attract new students, increasing numbers on campus, which leads to greater funding for UL to invest in other areas.

Also there is a NO campaign, it might no be visible but thats hardly the fault of those pushing the yes vote

I never stated that there wasn't one. Just that it was not being equally represented. There is a difference.

freyners

VoteUL14 wrote: »

I never stated that there wasn't one. Just that it was not being equally represented. There is a difference.

Again, the funding is available for both. The academic officer here has linked both the yes and no sides pages. How are they not equal? One having a better presence than the other due to better planning and seemingly better support doesnt mean its not equal

Chimaera

VoteUL14 wrote: »

I never stated that there wasn't one. Just that it was not being equally represented. There is a difference.

The Yes campaign have made the effort and have people working their asses off on the ground and online to advocate a Yes vote.

If those supporting a No vote haven't bothered to get bodies on the ground to make their side of the argument, it's their fault. They've had the same opportunities to make their argument and haven't taken them.

Jester252

I hate the "it's only this amount a week, just buy one less blank" argument.

Owen_S

So they're asking thousands of students to pay a levy for stuff that a fraction will get to use? And thats on top of the €258/year I already have to pay to the Arena just to use some of the facilities, seems like a no-brainer for me.

Skyrim

I find some of the yes side to be condescending and defensive when asking questions of them tbh

freyners

Skyrim wrote: »

I find some of the yes side to be condescending and defensive when asking questions of them tbh

While I'm not part of the YES campaign team I am encouraging all that I meet to vote yes and have been following this project for some time so if there is anything you would like answered post it here and I'll do my best. There are people far better read up on this here too

freyners

Owen_S wrote: »

So they're asking thousands of students to pay a levy for stuff that a fraction will get to use? And thats on top of the €258/year I already have to pay to the Arena just to use some of the facilities, seems like a no-brainer for me.

One thing, why you might not use any of the facilities directly (although if you use the gym then the extension alone would see a benefit given) the knock on effect of the facilities will certainly be of benefit to all students. I wrote about this earlier if you want to have a look

As an aside

It seems to be a tactic of the NO side to keep emphasising that the projects affect a minority. While the projects that are perceived as exclusively C&S (climbing wall/pitches etc) might only affect a relative few, the arena extension affects benefits anyone who uses the gym/pool/indoor courts/classes/other facilities. I'd imagine this number is a lot higher than most realise

Chimaera

Owen_S wrote: »

So they're asking thousands of students to pay a levy for stuff that a fraction will get to use? And thats on top of the €258/year I already have to pay to the Arena just to use some of the facilities, seems like a no-brainer for me.

If you weren't a student, you'd be paying €495 per year. And if you weren't a UL student, you'd be paying €265 for 8 months' membership, rather than the €258 you pay for a full year. Those discounts exist because UL students paid towards the cost of constructing the Arena through a similar levy in the past.

Even if only some students benefit directly, we all benefit indirectly from the increased profile of UL as a place with amazing facilities for its students.

If you are not a sporting person, this referendum offers you the opportunity to have input into the construction of a new Student Centre, and right now that one's a blank canvas.

freyners

Chimaera wrote:

If you are not a sporting person, this referendum offers you the opportunity to have input into the construction of a new Student Centre, and right now that one's a blank canvas.

completely forgot to mention this one

seen2Bgreen

i couldn't care less whether i'll be around to use the facilities fully. the arena wasn't always there and we got to enjoy that. i would encourage people not to think of themselves solely and look at what they can contribute to. its a fantastic initiative and way cheaper than in the boom times. Its YES for me.

VoteUL14

Asked some of the yes voters some of my concerns.

1. What do those who won't benefit get for their levy payment?
2. How is this referendum different from the one voted against last year?
3. Why aren't they informing students that this levy will be on top of the government levy? Making the item they would be paying twice as much.
4. Will the students paying (if it is passed) actually get to use the facilities or will they be completed after the majority have graduated?
5. If x of the student body will be after graduating before completion, then why can't the levy be staggered?


The answers?

Blank faces.

Chimaera

VoteUL14 wrote: »

Asked some of the yes voters some of my concerns.

1. What do those who won't benefit get for their levy payment?
2. How is this referendum different from the one voted against last year?
3. Why aren't they informing students that this levy will be on top of the government levy? Making the item they would be paying twice as much.
4. Will the students paying (if it is passed) actually get to use the facilities or will they be completed after the majority have graduated?
5. If x of the student body will be after graduating before completion, then why can't the levy be staggered?


The answers?

Blank faces.

1. We're paying it forward to a large extent. Current students have benefited from the contributions of their forebears, now it's our turn.

2. Last year the proposal included construction of a Student Centre design that had been proposed in 2009, this year it's gone back to the drawing board. The sports projects have evolved somewhat to accomodate more clubs. The Munster Rugby project has also necessitated changes since their site is part of the site originally proposed for the Arena extension.

3. This should be made clear in the Information Campaign's material. This is a levy by the SU and entirely separate to the €2250 annual registration fee levied by the university. I'm not sure where you're getting "twice as much" from here.

4. Some will. The timeline for the projects is available here. The first elements of the capital projects would expect to be completed by November this year, and all would be wrapped up by April 2016.

5. I guess it could be done, though I'm not sure how it would fit with loan repayment schedules. If the referendum passes, why don't you ask your class rep to raise this at Student Council?

freyners

Asked some of the yes voters some of my concerns.

1. What do those who won't benefit get for their levy payment?

1. has been the topic of the posts in the few above you post should you wish to read them

Everyone gets a benefit from the referendum due to every student having an input into the student centre design. There are also the indirect benefits of having these facilities, I mentioned a few of them earlier, ill quote it below

Simply put, UL wants to market itself as a first class university then it needs to have first class facilities in all areas, be it education facilities such as the new building beside the MSSI, or these new facilities. These facilities have the potential to attract new students, increasing numbers on campus, which leads to greater funding for UL to invest in other areas.

This and a couple of other points have been mentioned in this thread quite clearly

2. How is this referendum different from the one voted against last year?

• Levy has gone down from €130 to €67
• The building of the new student centre is not in this referendum, students are voting to open a consultation process to help design one that students are happy to endorse.
• The funding for these projects has completed changed, the original referendum was part funded by Atlantic Philantrophies, this is being funded by the Universitys access to the EIB

4. Will the students paying (if it is passed) actually get to use the facilities or will they be completed after the majority have graduated?

The timelines for when each project comes online are part of the FAQs on the general information page located here. Due to boards stance on reproducing material from other sites I wont quote it but the link is here http://www.ulwolves.ie/referendum2014/#q3c.

Latest completion date is April 16, which is in two academic years. So half of the students will have access to ALL facilities, some like the hurling wall will be done by November of this year

5. If x of the student body will be after graduating before completion, then why can't the levy be staggered?

There might be an official reason for this but i can spot a flaw in this from the off as it assumes that all students only have X amount of years in UL. In reality some students will have to repeat a year, others will drop out completely, others still will go on to do post graduate study here. Therefore there is not way at all to accurately stagger the levy that is equitable to all.

3. Why aren't they informing students that this levy will be on top of the government levy? Making the item they would be paying twice as much.

could you clarify this point, not sure what you are saying?

EDIT: Sorry for any duplication between me and Chimera, didnt see his post till I posted

VoteUL14

Chimaera wrote: »

1. We're paying it forward to a large extent. Current students have benefited from the contributions of their forebears, now it's our turn.

2. Last year the proposal included construction of a Student Centre design that had been proposed in 2009, this year it's gone back to the drawing board. The sports projects have evolved somewhat to accomodate more clubs. The Munster Rugby project has also necessitated changes since their site is part of the site originally proposed for the Arena extension.

3. This should be made clear in the Information Campaign's material. This is a levy by the SU and entirely separate to the €2250 annual registration fee levied by the university. I'm not sure where you're getting "twice as much" from here.

4. Some will. The timeline for the projects is available here. The first elements of the capital projects would expect to be completed by November this year, and all would be wrapped up by April 2016.

5. I guess it could be done, though I'm not sure how it would fit with loan repayment schedules. If the referendum passes, why don't you ask your class rep to raise this at Student Council?

At least you can answer my questions. However, I based my vote on talking to those campaigners earlier and they failed. Those campaigning should have the answers or at least the intelligence to own up and say you know what I don't have all the answers (we are all human and I know that) but let me try find out for you instead of staring blankly at me.

Also heard there are Sabbaticals openly sided one way....

Should they be allowed do this? At the end of the day their mandate is to advocate for the ENTIRE student body and lets face it not every student is going to vote in the first place never mind all vote the same way. So why are the student representatives for the ENTIRE student body basically trying to sway the student opinion. I don't find this impartial.

freyners

VoteUL14 wrote:

Also heard there are Sabbaticals openly sided one way....

Should they be allowed do this? At the end of the day their mandate is to advocate for the ENTIRE student body and lets face it not every student is going to vote in the first place never mind all vote the same way. So why are the student representatives for the ENTIRE student body basically trying to sway the student opinion. I don't find this impartial.

Not quite sure are they allowed but I dont see why they shouldn't be. In National referenda most politicians openly side one way or the other and they are elected to govern us all. Being a officer shouldn't disbar you from being able to campaign for something you feel strongly in

DJCR

VoteUL14 wrote: »

Also heard there are Sabbaticals openly sided one way.... Should they be allowed do this?

Yes, they just cant be on the ERB. Credit to Paddy for staying out of this one. I've never known Paddy to stay out of anything and he's doing a fantastic job of staying neutral on this one.

Simply put, the type of people that go for election have a vision of where they want to see the union go, when they campaign they campaign on these issues. Otherwise you would have sabats that arrive and say what will we do? Lets ask the student populous what we should do and then the term is over.

Its nice to see sabats push agendas, that's what they are there to do. They are there for one or two years (unless you're of the persuasion of the aforementioned legend [the historical kind mind you, pushing for a pension at this stage]) to push the Union forward and make their mark. If the students agree they will pass the referendum, if not they won't. But anyone who voted last year knew this was coming.

Personally, I would prefer a Union with vision and chases that vision as opposed to one that flounders around.

VoteUL14

freyners wrote: »

Not quite sure are they allowed but I dont see why they shouldn't be. In National referenda most politicians openly side one way or the other and they are elected to govern us all. Being a officer shouldn't disbar you from being able to campaign for something you feel strongly in

I just think it makes for a bias referendum.

They are the student representatives in the union that is running the referendum they should remain publicly impartial.

Personally for me they should just facilitate the role akin to a referendum commission;

To inform students that there is a referendum
AND
To encourage to vote (in general)

VoteUL14

DJCR wrote: »

Credit to Paddy for staying out of this one. I've never known Paddy to stay out of anything and he's doing a fantastic job of staying neutral on this one.

I totally agree with this. Neutral

wnolan1992

VoteUL14 wrote: »

Personally for me they should just facilitate the role akin to a referendum commission;

To inform students that there is a referendum
AND
To encourage to vote (in general)

Isn't that what the ERB is for though? It's my understanding that the ERB ensure a fair referendum while the Sabbats are free to campaign if they wish. Open to correction on that btw.

And, again, correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't some of the candidates last year campaign on the basis that they would get the referendum rerun? So it would seem a bit silly if they aren't allowed to campaign.


A referendum like this is always going to have more open support for the Yes side because the Yes side can appeal to those who are engaged with the Union so have clear leaders (C&S) to spearhead the campaign.

Whereas the No side is largely made up of those who don't give a toss about C&S/SU nonsense and just want to enjoy their time in UL. So while equal funding may be available, it can't really be utilised effectively unless someone from this group steps up to campaign, and since these people are already disengaged, it makes that less likely.

/My 2c.

Kelefants

Just a point of information, the SU were mandated by both representative bodies of the union to run this referendum. This technically allows the president to run the campaign on their behalf.

For those who aren't aware the two representative bodies are the Clubs and Societies Council and the Student Council (formerly the Class Reps Council ).

Another note, the new constitution doesn't prevent the union from getting involved on either side. This is a constitution that was brought in by a quorate agm last year. If you have an issue with this you can submit a request to the next General Meeting with the required signatures to amend the constitution which will then be voted on. However we currently have no such prohibitions in place and with the mandate of the students to run this referendum sabbatical officers are entitled to get involved. This referendum is also not about sabbatical officers involving themselves in campaigns. It is about improving our facilities.

For anyone out there who still has questions please get in touch and I will endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability. If I am unable to answer the question I will direct you to someone who can.