PSU motions to reduce accountability

LilRedDorcha

Couldn't make it to the AGM. Does anyone know what happened at it?

Reiver

Aye. What news? Did it even reach quorum?

TrionaBump

It's still going ahead. Reached quorum but no idea how it is going bar the clear signs of high tensions. You can't see inside the windows with the condensation

Perpetual Student

What, its still going on??

Chimaera

Still here.

TrionaBump

Chimaera wrote: »

Still here.

Jesus... So just as well the Stables cancelled the BBQ

Perpetual Student

Will someone post an update/summary when they can please...?

wnolan1992

"Screw it! We can't solve these problems, let's just burn the place down!"

Reiver

Bloody hell.

My sympathies lads, the buses finished before ye!

Cadroc

I think that after this fiasco a referendum should be called for the removal of the PSU President, effective immediately. This president is doing more harm to the PSU than anything else.

reunion

People on facebook wrote:

The president wanted to make a lot of changes after a not so great summer where he attempted to go behind the students back frequently and wouldn't reply to emails questioning it.
So there was a lot of discussions on what happened in the summer and then we had to vote if we wanted to make the changes he wanted (they were all voted down)

Can anyone else confirm that they motions were shot down?

Sounds to me that the PSU president may need to be removed or issue a massive massive apology and be 100% transparent on his entire process (though, even at that, I'm not certain he should stay).

Evergreen23

reunion wrote: »

Can anyone else confirm that they motions were shot down?

Sounds to me that the PSU president may need to be removed or issue a massive massive apology and be 100% transparent on his entire process (though, even at that, I'm not certain he should stay).

Didn't make it last night unfortunately.

Agree with the above.

On transparency, are the UL PSU accounts audited? Does anyone know what budget they have and after C&S where does the money go after the President's salary? What is the salary out of interest?

Perpetual Student

Have heard from 3 or 4 people, all in attendance, that none of the motions were passed. It will be interesting to see if any email comes from the president today informing those not in attendance of what happened, who was elected, the future plans of the PSU etc.

Chimaera

Last night was a 5 hour marathon!

All bar one of the motions to amend the constitution were defeated. One or two didn't even get as far as a vote. The motion that did pass didn't actually involve any amendment to the constitution: it was the one about allowing 4th years to vote in PSU elections. The consensus was that while a nice idea, it's unworkable in practice so it didn't really matter if it passed or not.

IMO Seamus' performance did little to convince anyone he's a suitable person to lead the union. We'll see what the coming days and weeks bring.

reunion

Chimaera wrote: »

Last night was a 5 hour marathon!

All bar one of the motions to amend the constitution were defeated. One or two didn't even get as far as a vote. The motion that did pass didn't actually involve any amendment to the constitution: it was the one about allowing 4th years to vote in PSU elections. The consensus was that while a nice idea, it's unworkable in practice so it didn't really matter if it passed or not.

IMO Seamus' performance did little to convince anyone he's a suitable person to lead the union. We'll see what the coming days and weeks bring.

What took 5 hours? Surely if you skipped some motions and others were rapidly defeated, what made the meeting take 5 hours?

The 4 year idea was so stupid. Why does a 4th year leaving UL get to vote in an election for a students' union they were never and will never be part of? It is like giving every 6th year in the surrounding area/country a vote in the ULSU elections because they might be joining ULSU next year.


He must reply with an update on the website about the result of the AGM (why delete the previous site for another site that is slow to be updated?) and email students (who weren't there) notifying them about the result. He urgently needs to create an online forum (or re-use boards) to engage students and actually find out what they want before he wastes another 5 hours of more post-grad students time.

Popoutman

So it seems that Noonan is still being an idiot. Within 24hr of this meeting where it was obvious that the general Postgrad population was displeased with his performance and with a lot of express pointers to improve communication with the exec and other officers etc, he goes and makes an idiot of himself with the GEMS students, without consultation.

Does this muppet think that we are idiots? The complete lack of respect for those he represents is an abysmal situation, and the sooner he goes whether by choice or not, the better.

Mahatma Geansai

Regarding the motion to reduce postgrad funding for C&S, does anyone have an idea of the funding breakdown?

Someone in Seamus' position should have no problem ascertaining the relative C&S funding breakdown between postgrad and undergrad students:

• It shouldn't be difficult to find out how many C&S members are undergrads and how many are postgrads.
• It should also be easy for Seamus to find out how much funding undergrads and postgrads provide to C&S.

Knowing this information, the respective fractional contribution towards C&S by undergrads and postgrads can be found.

I'd hazard a guess that, on a per capita basis, individual postgrads contribute more towards C&S than undergrads do. If this is true, it must be changed.

The problem with university politics, however, is that the students who care about these SU issues - those who will turn out in force to vote on them - are by-and-large already ingrained within the C&S. It's a positive feedback loop that makes change very difficult.

Chimaera

Both ULSU and the PSU observe the same 2/3 allocation of capitation, and the division is carried out in the same fashion i.e. sabbat salaries and some other admin costs are paid before the money is split up.

In AY 2014, there were approximately 3100 postgards enrolled in UL, and a little less than 550 of those were engaged with C&S. In the same year, the total membership of C&S was ~4600, in a student population of ~13000. So yes postgrads are represented less well in C&S than undergrads (18 % takeup vs 41 %).

Over the last few years, the PSU has not excelled itself in selling C&S to postgrads. Most postgrad members of C&S fall into the following categories I suspect:
1. Students who completed their undergrad in UL and are continuing their C&S involvement.
2. Students who had been involved in C&S in their undergrad university and want to continue pursuing that activity in UL.
The PSU could do a lot more to publicise C&S to its members and encourage higher takeup. This would be especially beneficial to research postgrads who come to UL from other universities/countries, as a way for them to get involved in UL socially.

When it comes to representation, tough luck to anyone who doesn't turn up to speak and vote on these issues. Yes, C&S turned out in force at this meeting because they had something to fight for. Seamus Noonan can bleat on all he likes about representing the union members' concerns, but unless those members turn up to vote on the motions at an AGM then they've no right to complain.

The biggest issue among the C&S members present on the night wasn't that this funding was being discussed, it was that the motions proposed the removal of all agreements and funding without presenting a well-researched and prepared alternative.

Personally, I'd be open to suggestions on the matter if the following happened:
PSU talks to ULSU about the MoU and discusses the concerns of its members and prepares a new MoU to address that.
PSU makes a real effort to sell C&S to its members.
PSU produces a detailed account of why it needs to recover the money that's being allocated to C&S, backed up by previous year's accounts showing shortfall in the relevant spending areas, and a detailed costing of how the recovered money would be allocated.

From what I've seen of Seamus Noonan, I can't see any of the above happening.

Mahatma Geansai

Chimaera wrote: »

Both ULSU and the PSU observe the same 2/3 allocation of capitation, and the division is carried out in the same fashion i.e. sabbat salaries and some other admin costs are paid before the money is split up.

In AY 2014, there were approximately 3100 postgards enrolled in UL, and a little less than 550 of those were engaged with C&S. In the same year, the total membership of C&S was ~4600, in a student population of ~13000. So yes postgrads are represented less well in C&S than undergrads (18 % takeup vs 41 %).

So, essentially, postgrads contribute over twice as much towards C&S than undergrads. If true, that is a complete disgrace, and no level-headed person could possibly consider that acceptable.

Postgraduate students are effectively subsidising the extra-curricular activities of undergraduate students.

Chimaera wrote:

Personally, I'd be open to suggestions on the matter if the following happened:
PSU talks to ULSU about the MoU and discusses the concerns of its members and prepares a new MoU to address that.
PSU makes a real effort to sell C&S to its members.
PSU produces a detailed account of why it needs to recover the money that's being allocated to C&S, backed up by previous year's accounts showing shortfall in the relevant spending areas, and a detailed costing of how the recovered money would be allocated.

From what I've seen of Seamus Noonan, I can't see any of the above happening.

The PSU shouldn't have to do anything of the sort. I don't actually agree with student's funding being directed towards C&S, but at the very minimum, all students in the university should be paying equally towards C&S.

It should be proposed that the contributions of undergrad and postgrad students towards C&S to be kept equal on a fractional basis. Immediately, the PSU would have a further ~€50k available to allocate towards important PSU facilities/services each year; I think the PSU currently contributes ~€100k to C&S each year, but I may be wrong.

A plan for the money would have to be drawn up, but postgrad students shouldn't be expected to continue to subsidise the undergrad student experience until it is done. Even if the cash was rerouted towards a bank account, it would be a fairer/better use of the funds.

Chimaera

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

So, essentially, postgrads contribute over twice as much towards C&S than undergrads. If true, that is a complete disgrace, and no level-headed person could possibly consider that acceptable.

Postgraduate students are effectively subsidising the extra-curricular activities of undergraduate students.

Not really. The disparity is because postgraduates choose not to get involved with C&S - I'll refer you back to the earlier points I made about why this might be so. The PSU's substandard efforts in publicising C&S to postgrads are largely to blame here IMO.

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

The PSU shouldn't have to do anything of the sort. I don't actually agree with student's funding being directed towards C&S, but at the very minimum, all students in the university should be paying equally towards C&S.

The system as it stands is quite equitable: C&S are funded from both undergrad and postgrad capitation on the same basis; all students are equally eligible for participation in C&S. If they choose not to that's their own decision.

Before the PSU existed, all capitation was routed through ULSU and postgrads had no individual say in how their portion was spent. UL is also quite unusual in having a PSU separate to the main union.

The reason for requiring a detailed breakdown of how they plan to use the money is simple: demonstrate a need for it rather than do some handwaving about it might be inequitable. From what I've heard (from some pretty well-informed sources), the PSU is not in any financial need of extra funds as things stand.

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

It should be proposed that the contributions of undergrad and postgrad students towards C&S to be kept equal on a fractional basis. Immediately, the PSU would have a further ~€50k available to allocate towards important PSU facilities/services each year; I think the PSU currently contributes ~€100k to C&S each year, but I may be wrong.

How do you determine the fractional basis?

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

A plan for the money would have to be drawn up, but postgrad students shouldn't be expected to continue to subsidise the undergrad student experience until it is done. Even if the cash was rerouted towards a bank account, it would be a fairer/better use of the funds.

So you want to remove money from C&S: what do you think it should be used for? Basically, put up or shut up. Saying that the money should just be put in a bank account until someone can think of a use for it is like a child taking their ball home so no-one else can play with it.

It's also worth considering that more postgrads were members of C&S last year than voted in the election that put Seamus in place as the President. In other words, C&S have a greater mandate from postgrads than the president of the union.

ninty9er

Popoutman wrote: »

So it seems that Noonan is still being an idiot. Within 24hr of this meeting where it was obvious that the general Postgrad population was displeased with his performance and with a lot of express pointers to improve communication with the exec and other officers etc, he goes and makes an idiot of himself with the GEMS students, without consultation.

Does this muppet think that we are idiots? The complete lack of respect for those he represents is an abysmal situation, and the sooner he goes whether by choice or not, the better.

GEMS students are undergraduates

Perpetual Student wrote: »

I had heard this 2/3 recommendation before but could not recall where, had a google and came across this - an old C & S handbook but a university document none the less:

H T T P /ulwolves.ie/info/guides/UL%20Wolves%20-%20Rulebook.pdf

P32 is of particular relevance in terms of the split. It looks like this recommendation was in place for a quite a long time, does anyone know when....?

Not a university document, a clubs and societies document. When I was investigating it, neither the HEA, UL or C&S could provide the HEA document containing this recommendation. It's also worth noting that all of the 2/3 does not go directly to student activities, and if the University were to take on C&S the amount would dramatically reduce due to public sector pay scales which would apply for administrators.

Popoutman

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

So, essentially, postgrads contribute over twice as much towards C&S than undergrads.

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

Postgraduate students are effectively subsidising the extra-curricular activities of undergraduate students.

You're looking at this the wrong way. In UL. postgrads fail to utilise C&S to the same extent as undergrads, and no level-headed person could possibly consider this situation acceptable, when C&S has so much to offer the postgrad student. Postgraduate students are either unaware of, or haven't been offered, to use the C&S capabilities to the same extent as undergrads, and as such are not getting value for the money paid. This needs to change, and the best way to change that from a student perspective is to better sell C&S to the postgraduate students, vastly improving their quality of life as a student for very little personal outlay. Every postgraduate that I am aware of that has joined C&S groups has been glad to have done that with the extracurricular activities available. Diverting cash to a bank account robs postgraduate students of better facilities for their personal development and ease their time during a pressure-filled time in their lives - objectives served very well by C&S.

I take it that you have not spent any time associating with any C&S entities over the years? I'm sure that if you had, you wouldn't have the view that you currently appear to have..

ninty9er wrote: »

GEMS students are undergraduates

Yep, that's now been completely clarified as such though the course title is "Graduate Entry" implying that it is post-graduate in level. Still, Noonan has managed to put his spanner in the spokes there, even though he's had absolutely no right to, completely bypassing the pre-existing communication lines and going to a national group bypassing the student's representative on campus. He's proving himself to be an idiot and to be quite untrustworthy based on those actions.

ninty9er

Popoutman wrote: »

Yep, that's now been completely clarified as such though the course title is "Graduate Entry" implying that it is post-graduate in level. Still, Noonan has managed to put his spanner in the spokes there, even though he's had absolutely no right to, completely bypassing the pre-existing communication lines and going to a national group bypassing the student's representative on campus. He's proving himself to be an idiot and to be quite untrustworthy based on those actions.

GEMS was clarified quite a number of years ago.

On a side note all postgrads are also members of ULSU, so have the support and advice of its staff and officers should they not be happy with their specific union.

freyners

For those of us not in the loop, what exactly did he do with the GEMS?