So you'll be voting on USI again.

errlloyd

You will all be voting on USI again in a couple of weeks. I've had my say and graduated, but I thought the following link would be useful.

This is a thread from 2013 that discussed the congress we attended in our final year of USI membership, in it there is a link to a similar thread about the congress the year before. Most students from 2013 will have moved on, so I thought I would post this so any new students can try and understand the conditions on which we left.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056913994

Kiltennel

Initially I was pretty annoyed this has gone to a vote again, considering only 3 years ago we voted overwhelmingly in support to leave the USI. I didn't take into account that most (c. 75% perhaps?) students who would have voted then have left the college since. Will be interesting to see what the outcome is this time.

Errlloyd, any idea has USI improved or is it still the pisstake it was 3 years ago?

errlloyd

I wasn't going to post my views, but seen as you asked....

They haven't gone near any of the reforms we called for, which is quite disappointing. The same old problems of lack of accountability seem to still exist.

• It still costs the same, so UCDSU would still be paying the most, and benefiting the least (because most of USI services are offered by UCDSU)
• There is still no direct democracy, all decisions are sitll made by delegates representing their student bodies, and those delegates are still overwelmingly picked on a "whatever student is available to take a week off and go on the piss basis" *evidence attached
• There is still no multi year terms, meaning officers effecitvely begin and end their term at congress (even though they serve July-June) meaning there is no accountability. Officers still use their "officer report" as a farewell speech, and actually questioning them is still frowned upon.
• Congress itself still has no meaningful debate. Time is too restricted, delegates are too distracted and motions are voted in based on their idealogical mertis rather than practical implentability.

*http://campus.ie/surviving-college/college-news/%E2%80%98trolley-gate-hotel-rooms-thrashed-su%E2%80%99s-congress-after-party%E2%80%99

So I guess you have to ask yourself has UCDSU missed USI membership?

In terms of important campaigns I think our local SU has outperformed USI. We had a more successful voter registration drive for the ME referendum than any USI member. Ours was managed by our SU and they just did a better job. It's a classic example of the type of job USI takes responsibility for, but local unions are actually better placed to perform.

We've also got a very positive record on female empowerment compared to the national average. Since leaving USI we've elected 5 different women into sabbatical positions.

The rest of the stuff is pretty much a wash. Our SU offers it's own suicide training. It has implemented it's own very successful commercial management policy. I don't know if our SU has let down LGBT students since disaffiliation (because we are no longer able to attend pink training), I hope they have managed to fill that gap, but I cannot be sure.

Ultimately the SU this year felt the need to cancel the ball in order to be financially prudent - so we're not exactly flush with cash. I think they're making sensible decisions.

This referendum is phrased in such a way as to increase the Student Levy to pay for USI, so the money wouldn't be coming out of the SU coffers, but it is still worth nothing that it will be the better part of 120,000e. It will be justified as "sure its only the cost of a pint" or whatever, but at the end of the day it's still an opportunity cost.

I am annoyed with this referendum for a few reasons.

1. We have to have a referendum next year anyway, so whoever called this is either A: Hoping to run for USI, B: Involved in a Youth Politcal party and got told by their senior party to do it, C: Strategically decided to call the referendum at the last minute in secret to capitalise on the fact that students will be uninformed voters, Is just impatient.
2. It is phrased in such a way to add to the SU centre levy, which is a mis-use of that levy, and was clearly done as a way of making sure the USI charge never appears as a line (separate levy) on a student's fees.
3. Ran the referendum alongside a sabbatical officer campaign because they knew that way they'd get the highest percentage of uninformed voters possible while still probably reaching quorum.

The 2013 referendum was a rock of legitimacy. It had the greatest possible level of integrity. It was debated in two newspapers. It was debated on CTN and Belfield FM. It was debated in the L&H and in Student Council. It received National coverage. It was lecture addressed to every single student. It was called pretty much a year in advance to allow both sides to prepare. It was pretty much a standalone referendum (Ents officer was lobbed in, but that was a small campaign) meaning that those students who voted were not given a ballot card they weren't expecting.

This referendum is a political ambush. Designed purely to get the desired vote without having the desired discussion. It's denying UCD students of an opportunity to actively engage with the discourse.

For what it is worth, I don't believe USI were involved in calling it. I think they would rather have a proper re-run of 2013. They too would want a legitimate mandate here.

Andru93

Voted against it three years ago. Will do the same this year, though the fee change won't affect me as my five years are nearly up! I still see it as a complete and utter waste of good money. Reasons below,

- 120,000€ as other's have said way more than any other college and what do they have to show for it?
- Currently USI is a more or less a piss take of a year for anyone involve, compared to what they once its a real shame. But until there is proper reform I don't see a need to gave them more free money.
- I'm going to say it was one of the SU Hacks called this last minute (probably looking for a seat on the USI Board), as there was word of a referendum last year from one of the old UCDSU Sabbatical Officers.

b0gg3r

What does the SU stand to gain from rejoining the USI?

Anyone who is in favour of rejoining want to weigh in?

Eathrin

b0gg3r wrote: »

What does the SU stand to gain from rejoining the USI?

Anyone who is in favour of rejoining want to weigh in?

I'll throw my opinion in the ring, though I'm a NO supporter.

The Yes side claim that our membership will create a 'stronger voice' and allow us to weigh in with our issues at a 'national level'. The things promised by the Yes side are hyperbolic at best. Check out their facebook page and see for yourself.

One of the main messages coming from the NO side is that they'd rather see change within USI before joining again. UCD left in 2013 and they've had plenty of time to make changes. We don't want to be bought with empty promises only to be let down again. 115'000 seems like an absolutely massive gamble.

As an entity, USI is roughly similar in size to UCDSU's operation. Campaigns run by USI in 3rd level institutions around Marriage Equality, Feminism, Consent etc. are often either similar or smaller in size. Membership of USI is more beneficial to smaller institutions. Other services USI provides and charges member unions for like officer training are already being done at UCDSU. SHAG packs come nowhere near the quantity needed for UCD's student population and love it or hate it, the welfare officer in UCD already provides condoms to students by the truckload. These services would cost UCDSU about 20'000 euro for the year. UCDSU can cut costs from within itself if needs be.

From where I'm standing, it seems that USI is trying to scare UCD students into thinking that they will be left to rot without their help. UCDSU is far from perfect but as a service for students, USI is even worse.

I do hope students vote no on Tuesday and Wednesday. I think the manner in which the yes side have gone about trying to win is incredibly unethical. Students deserve fair democracy.

errlloyd

Looks like a similar percentage no vote to last time, if not greater.

Eathrin

No wins with 74% of the vote.

Dair76

Delighted.

errlloyd

Frankly an unbelievable result. Less Yes votes than signatories on the petition calling the referendum. I think if there is one lesson learned here is that it is too easy to call a referendum in UCD.

Chances are USI and a bunch of political hacks are pretty pissed off that a group of 4 or 5 people called a snap referendum and lost so badly that it'll be 2020 before they can go again.