VOL.XXV, SU ELECTION SPECIAL

THE UNIVERSITY

OBSERVER

SU ELECTION SPECIAL 26TH MARCH 2019 |VOL XXV \ UNIVERSITYOBSERVER.IE

ELECTION

UCDSU needs to encourage more women to run An analysis of 68,500 votes suggests that men dominate the Union in part because fewer women run for election At the beginning of March, students in Trinity College Dublin elected 5 women to lead the university’s Students’ Union for the year 2019/2020. Apart from the sole male candidate who was elected to run the embattled University Times, a student-led newspaper fighting for its life following controversial allegations of bugging, Trinity’s women-led Students’ Union is a powerful symbolic achievement which UCD Students’ Union has not seen before, and will not see for at least another year.

In the wake of TCDSU’s election, the University Observer analysed almost 68,500 first preference votes across 25 races in the 6 sets of UCDSU sabbatical elections since 2014. This includes the 2017 presidential by-election which was triggered by the impeachment of former-Union President Katie Ascough.

Although not explicitly telling us why an all-female sabbatical team has not been elected, the data, collected by the Union’s returning office and the University Observer, shows students’ voting trends and reveals a positive correlation between the proportion of female candidates to the total number of candidates, and the proportion vote for female candidates.

Overall, since 2014, 57.2 per cent of student voters voted for 34 male candidates, while 22 female candidates received 36.5 per cent of votes. 6.4 per cent of votes cast were to Reopen Nominations (RON). Over this time, 10 women were elected as sabbatical officers, representing 40 per cent of all races held. 15 men have taken the remaining 60 per cent of sabbatical positions since 2014.

Elected Officers Since 2014, there have been 6 sets of sabbatical elections, including the 2017 presidential by-election, which have elected 25 sabbatical officers to one year terms at the UCD Students’ Union. There have been 6 Presidents, 5 Education, Welfare and Graduate Officers and 4 Campaign & Communication (C&C) Officers. Of all elected officers, 10 were women and 15 were men. When those elected are broken down by sex, there have been 5 male Presidents and 1 female President; 3 female and 2 male Education Officers; 4 female and 1 male Welfare Officers; 2 female and 3 male Graduate Officers and 4 male C&C Officers.

Candidates 34 men, representing 61 per cent of all candidates, ran across the 25 races in the last 5 years, with 11 male candidates running for both the positions of President

2

running for both the positions of President and Campaigns & Communications Officer. Of the 7 female candidates who ran for the position of President, 4 of them ran for President in the 2017/2018 academic year’s Presidential by-election and annual sabbatical election.

Since 2015, when the position of C&C officer was reinstated, there has only been one female candidate to run for the position. Katie O’Dea, who is the sole C&C candidate in this year’s sabbatical elections, is therefore certain to be the first female C&C officer since the position was added back to the sabbatical team.

Education and Welfare are the only portfolios for which more female than male candidates have run. 5 women have run for Education since 2014, compared to 4 male candidates, while 7 female candidates ran for Welfare compared to 4 men.

How have constituencies voted?

The Arts & Humanities, Sciences, Agriculture and Food Sciences, and Health Sciences constituencies are the four largest voting blocs among the UCDSU electorate, together representing 64.6 per cent of all student voters since 2014. Arts students have made up over 27 per cent of all valid voters, with Science making up 15.5 per cent, Health Sciences at 11.4 per cent, and Agriculture and Food Sciences students at 10.5 per cent.

Proportionally, Veterinary students, who make up less than 5 per cent of all voters, voted for female candidates the least, with 33.3 per cent of all their votes going to female candidates. The Veterinary constituency also represented the lowest proportion of RON votes at 4 per cent of all their votes since 2014.

In contrast, the Carysfort graduate constituency voted for female candidates the most at 44.2 per cent of all of the constituency’s votes since 2014. Carysfort, which is the smallest constituency at 1.5 per cent of all student voters, also had the highest proportion of RON voters at just over 8 percent.

Out of all elections in the last 5 years, the Veterinary constituency has favoured male candidates the most, allocating 62.6 per cent of votes to them.

The Arts constituency, as the largest voting bloc, allocated 57.5 per cent of their votes towards male candidates, compared to 36.5 per cent of votes for female candidates and 6 per cent towards RON.

ELECTION Image: Matthew Rose-Nel Photography

College Officer Elections: Meet the candidates College Officers form a key part of the Executive forum of the Students Union in UCD. Along with the Sabbatical officers and the Irish Language Officer, these students represent the highest body on the union. There are 9 constituencies in total; Law, Business, Engineering and Architecture, Arts Humanities & Social Sciences, Science, Health Science, Gaeilge and Agricultural, Food and Veterinary Science. Each constituency will elect one college officer with the exception of the Arts Humanities and Social Sciences where there are 2 seats available.

Law is the only constituency which is contested this year. The two candidates are Joseph Boyle and Molly Greenough.

Boyle is a 1st year Law with Politics student, from Tipperary. Elected class representative by his peers, he is keen to take up the post to improve the day-to-day life of students. His ideas include working with professors to more evenly schedule assignments/ deadlines, providing more study spaces in Sutherland and looking into corporate sponsors to ensure enough law books are available for students.

Apart from also acting as class representative, Greenough is an ENTS rep, and has a show on Belfield FM. Originally from Boston, Massachusetts, the Law with Social Justice student wants to fairly represent all voices within the Law school and to help a Union which she admires, but admits is ailing. She is

hoping to increase Erasmus options for law students, as well as coordinating with lecturers to improve assignment feedback and organising events with non-corporate law firms.

Although the remainder of the candidates are running unopposed, students can still have their say on whether to accept them or not, by voting for them or to Re-Open Nominations (RON). To be elected each nominee must reach a quota determined on the basis of the turnout on the day, which is set at the smallest possible number of votes that nevertheless ensures that only the available seats are filled.

In the case of the Business; Gaeilge; Agricultural, Food and Veterinary Science, where there are no nominees, a by-election will be held to fill these vacant positions before the end of the semester, if anyone is nominated. This year these by-elections will be held in tandem with the election for the Sabbatical Entertainments Officer, if the constitutional amendments are passed.

Failing that, these positions will be filled from within the membership of the Council as soon as is practicable.

Molly Gervin is running, unopposed, for the position of Health Sciences College Officer. She is running for this position determined to shine a light on too often ignored representation problem for Health sciences students.

Student problems, and their need for support, don’t go simply away when

they’re on placement and Gerwen believes the SU can do more to support these students, starting by facilitating their bringing of issues/ideas to Council despite not being able to physically attend.

Running for the position of Science College Officer is Lucy Dornan, a 1st year student who has been involved with the Students Union even before her first day in UCD, having packed bags for the Freshers fest with the current Science College Officer, Emily Bollard. A dedicated class representative, Dornan has maintained a high level of attendance at Council meetings and is aiming to bring this work ethic and dedication to the role of College Officer. She is also keen to improve the practical aspect of student life for science students; from extending the trial of recycling bins to the O’Brien Centre for Science, increasing the number of seating areas and bringing back microwaves.

Joshua Gorman Climax is the sole nominee for the Engineering and Architecture constituency. The most experienced of all the candidates in terms of Union involvement, he has been an active member for the last 4 years, 3 of them as class representative. He wants to improve coordination of Union activity at a class level and reverse the shift of all responsibility to already-overworked sabbatical officers through strong local organisation in his faculty.

Emily Gallagher and Robyn O’Keefe

are hoping to fill the two seats on offer in the Arts Humanities and Social Sciences constituency. Gallagher is a 1st year Social Science student, majoring in History and Politics. She is hoping to rely on her history of organising events/clubs - notably, she was heavily involved in Model United Nations in her secondary school. One of her more accessible ideas is the holding of ‘office hours’ every week - where students could come and discuss any issues/queries they may have, where they would otherwise be reluctant to approach the programme office.

O’Keefe, also a class representative, is a 1st year student studying Social Policy and Sociology with Irish. From being involved in a number of SU events, including Seachtain na Gaeilge, student activism and RAG week, O’Keefe realised that her ambitions and goals were more in line with the role of College Officer.

She is excited to engage with the newly appointed building manager in Newman and trying to unite the disparate strands of the AHSS programs in several large events, notably a ball.

College Officers can have a huge impact if properly selected and scrutinised. Their portfolio of work is far more focused and thus they can influence microcosmic issues in each college far more readily than Sabbatical Officers, who have a far broader focus, and class representatives, who may not have the experience or the weight of authority as much behind them.

3

ELECTION FAQ With sabbatical elections and two referenda to be voted on over two day, here are some frequently asked questions so you can remain in the know when you go to vote.

What am I voting for?

Students will be voting to elect representatives to the UCD Students’ Union’s Executive. The group is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Union and is made up of the President, the Welfare Officer, Education Officer, Graduate Officer, the Campaign & Communications Officer and 9 College Officers. Students will also be voting on a proposed new constitution for the Union and whether to accept an extension to the student centre levy.

What is “voting down the ballot”?

Voting in executive elections is carried out in a similar format to Irish political elections, in that there is proportional representation. This means that you can vote 1,2,3 etc for candidates in your order of preference. If no candidate reaches the quorum in the first count, the candidate in last place will be eliminated. The votes of the eliminated candidate will be redistributed to the remaining candidates. Then, your number 2 vote will be transferred to the candidate that you placed as second preference.

Voting down the ballot means that instead of voting for just one candidate, you are ensuring that the kind of candidates you like are more likely to get elected and candidates you don’t like have less of a chance.

What is RON?

RON stands for Re-Open Nominations. This vote is treated like a candidate in all executive elections. If you do not like the candidates for a race, you can vote RON number 1. If you really like candidates and greatly dislike other candidates, you can vote for the ones you like and then vote RON ahead of the candidates you dislike, in order of personal preference. This also ensures that there are not wasted votes.

What are the two referenda about?

Along with the executive elections, students will be asked to vote on a referendum to accept changes to the UCDSU Constitution and a referendum to extend the Student Centre Levy. One of the main issues the first referendum asks students is to decide whether or not to re-introduce the role of Ents Officer as a sabbatical position and remove the requirement to hold a vote on USI membership every few years. The second referendum asks students whether or not they agree to extend the Student Centre levy to fund the expansion of the Student Centre.

What is Hustings?

Before voting is to take place, all candidates in the executive elections, as well as any student involved in either the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ campaigns will address students at an open debate called hustings. They will be quizzed on their campaigns, manifestos and visions for their chosen roles. All students are invited to attend, and it is a way to ask any burning questions you may have for any of the candidates running, if you are still on the fence before voting.

When and where do I vote?

Voting will take place on the 1st and 2nd April. Each school will have their own individual specific time and location for voting. To see where you are voting, and from what time, check the timetable below.

What do I need to vote?

All you need to bring with you is your UCard to vote, as proof of identity. You will be provided with each ballot and writing material at the polling station.

UCDSU EXECUTIVE ELECTIONS POLLING SCHEME - 1ST & 2ND APRIL 2019 Monday 1st April

Agriculture 9.30am – 5.00pm

Agriculture & Vet

Veterinary 10am - 4pm

Engineering & Architecture

Richview 9.30am – 1.15pm

Engineering 9.30am – 5.00pm

Newstead 1.45pm – 5.30pm

Newman Building 6.00pm – 9.00pm

Newman Building 6.00pm – 9.00pm

Newman Building 9:15am – 5.15pm

Arts & Human Sciences

Newman Building 6.00pm – 9.00pm

Business (Undergraduate)

Quinn School 9.30am – 5.00pm

(Excluding B&L)

Newman Building 6.00pm – 9.00pm

Business & Law (Postgraduate) Health Sci. & Nursing

Carysfort 10am - 5pm

Newman Building 6.00pm – 9.00pm Health Sciences 9:30am – 5:00pm Newman Building 6.00pm – 9.00pm

Law (Undergraduate)

Sutherland 9.30am – 5.00pm

(Including B&L)

Newman Building 6.00pm – 9.00pm

Science

4

Tuesday 2nd April

Science 9:30am – 5:15pm Newman Building 6.00pm – 9.00pm

REFERENDUM

Constitutional referendum to adopt an amended constitution The first referendum that UCD students are being asked to vote on concerns ratifying the changes discussed at Council to the SU Constitution The UCDSU Constitution provides details for how the Students’ Union is to be run on a daily basis, from how often the executive is to meet, to the duties of each sabbatical officer. Proposals for amendments were first brought to Union council on Monday 19th November, by the Union’s Constitutional Group, where they outlined their recommendations to the proposed constitution.

The referendum was called at an extraordinary council meeting on Monday 4th March, after the majority of members voted to pass the motion, brought forward by UCDSU President Barry Murphy. UCDSU Graduate Officer Niall Torris is set to take annual leave to campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum, with no formal group of students having contacted the Returning Officer by the 15th March to campaign for a ‘No’ vote.

While members of the Union council have seen and discussed the amendments proposed to the constitution, the general student body had to contact the Union’s sabbatical officers to view the new document, as it had not been published

on the Union’s website or social media accounts prior to the mid-term break.

Under the new constitution, the role of Entertainments (Ents) Officer will be made a full-time sabbatical officer position. The Ents Officer will be the chair of the Entertainments forum, made up of a Production Officer, a Promotions Officer, a Non-Alcoholic Events Officer and a RAG (Raise And Give) Committee Coordinator. The forum will have seats on Union Council and therefore will be required to regularly attend council meeting; submit reports to council and have the ability to vote on motions broad to council. When asked over the cost of an additional sabbatical position to the Student’s Union, members of the constitutional review group said that although the new addition is a direct cost, it is preferable to hiring a staff member to run the Union’s events at a greater cost. The University Observer previously reported that Union expects to post a surplus of €27,000 for the end of the year 2019, and an estimated spend of €1,030,601, over half of which is payroll costs for Union sabbatical

officers, office staff and the staff of The University Observer.

UCD Students’ Union’s ties to the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) will be cut further if the proposed constitution is adopted. The new constitution would remove the article 26 requirement to hold a referendum on USI membership every four years. The last referendum on USI was held in March 2016 following the 2013 USI-UCDSU split, meaning that the next referendum on USI membership would have been held in the next academic year, 2019/2020.

Campaigns and Communications Officer, Tom Monaghan spoke in favour of the referendum at the extraordinary council meeting that the Entertainments Officer role was “sorely needed”, as he believes that “there should not be a crossover between the three campaigns, communications and entertainment.”

Changes to the proportion of signatures required to trigger an impeachment referendum, increasing from 5% to 7.5% of the total registered membership of the union. This means that approximately 2,000 student

signatures must be submitted to the Returning Officer before a referendum is called. The number of members required to vote in an impeachment referendum has also been increased to “at least 12.5% of Union membership” for the vote to be considered valid.

Besides an impeachment referendum, the threshold to call a referendum will be “no less than 3.5% of the total registered membership of the union,” as outlined among the proposed amendments. The group told council that this was ““seen as a healthy balance of a feasible threshold while also lowering the prospect of vexatious or otherwise cumbersome and expensive referendums for which there may not be broader support.”

The role of the Campaigns and Communications will be altered in the new constitution to be renamed “Campaigns & Engagement Officer,” with their duties updated to contribute to the input of all union publications (with the exception of the editorially independent publications) and be responsible for the day-to-day running of the Union’s website. Under the draft constitution, sabbatical officers will be required to run at least two campaigns a year related to their portfolio in conjunction with the Campaigns & Engagement Officer.

There will also be a new “Diversity & Inclusion Officer” and “Student Residences Coordinator” to the Campaigns forum, and will replace the Sports and Societies Coordinators which have often been left vacant in on the forum.

Although there is no formal ‘No’ campaign for this referendum, six Union council members opposed the motion to call for a referendum on the proposed constitution. Speaking at the extraordinary Union council meeting, Engineering and Architecture College Officer candidate Joshua Gorman Climax said that there are several matters in the constitution that are not currently done correctly, and that “changing it does not necessarily manifest change.”

Climax also told council that proposed constitution was drafted by past students who are unable to implement it, reminding council that many things that seem promising may never manifest.

Current International Students Coordinator, Andrew Grossen, spoke in favour the referendum, stating that it was the perfect debate for the student body to have.

Should voting on this referendum result in a ‘Yes’ vote, the Returning Officer will call for a by-election to fill the role of the Ents Officer, for the new sabbatical team.

5

REFERENDUM

Policy referendum to extend the Student Centre Levy The second referendum that UCD students are being asked to vote on concerns extending the student centre levy to fund the expansion plan to the student centre.

The Student Centre levy is a €254 fee that students are required to pay yearly in addition to the contribution fee.

Unlike the contribution fee, however, the Student Centre levy is not covered by the SUSI grant that some students are awarded to assist in paying third level fees.

Captain of the UCD Rowing Club, Max Murphy is leading the ‘Yes’ campaign to extend the levy, as after a spending in year of his undergraduate degree in New Zealand, it made him “grateful for the facilities UCD has offered...as they are arguably as good, and in places better than a lot of Universities in New Zealand, but I don’t think that means we should stop here and sit on what we have.”

Believing that the levy “is not an insignificant amount of money on top of our fees...I think I could say very confidently that what I have gained in return for paying that levy, far outweighs its actual cost,” Murphy is confident that the levy will provide funding for the expansion student centre and surrounding sports facilities, including the gym and pitches.

At a “Town Hall” style meeting of Student Union council held in November 2018, a proposal to expand the student centre was brought to the floor for discussion by staff members of Student

6

Services in UCD. The proposal outlined the addition office space for societies which do not currently have a room along the societies’ corridor, communal space for society events, meditation and relaxation spaces, a charging hub and rehearsal spaces which could accommodate DanceSoc and the Musical Society.

During the Town Hall meeting, members of council expressed their hesitation over committing to an increase in the levy, due to a lack of details over where the funding would go, what would be prioritised and how much the expansion plan would cost in total.

UCDSU Welfare Officer Melissa Plunkett told council that students were promised free access to the pool, when the levy was originally brought to students to pay for the mortgage on the construction of the Student Centre in 2006. According to Captain Murphy, the mortgage is due to be repaid in 2023.

UCDSU President Barry Murphy has said that the Student Services “are putting pressure on us to support this”.

He stated that “if we take a stance, it will affect other things.” In a meeting of the sports club captains held on Monday 4th March, a document on the Student Centre levy policy was distributed, in which the conditions for the extension of

the levy was discussed.

The conditions attached to a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum state that the said levy be payable until such time as the mortgage on the property is paid, and the period of the mortgage is not to exceed 20 years. Also included with the levy is the condition that “operational inflation” may be increased “only by consent of student representative leadership”, meaning that the Student Centre levy may be increased from year to year, at the behest of the UCDSU President to meet mortgage repayments or to prioritise a centre aspect of the expansion plan i.e. soccer pitches.

Captain Murphy has said that this model of funding the expansion plan was proposed because “This funding method has worked very well for Students from what I can see. It has provided incredible facilities for us and support for clubs, societies and the SU...Many other Irish Universities either currently have levies or are in the process of having votes to implement them.”

UCDSU President Murphy, Welfare Officer Melissa Plunkett and Education Officer Stephen Crosby are said to be taking annual leave to aid in the ‘No’ campaign. President Murphy has previously stated “that the Union should push for things that benefit the

most students and that are the least expensive”, giving the example of the indoor sports hub as a proposal which would benefit a limited number of students.

Captain Murphy is unclear as to what will be the result if a ‘No’ vote is successful in the referendum. Murphy shared what he believed to be likely scenarios at the meeting with sports club captains in March. Among them are gym membership to increase to approximately €300 per student, zero funding for sports clubs and societies no longer supported.

The University Observer has previously reported on the legitimacy of these claims, where in an interview, President Murphy debunked them stating “there was threats or comments included in that description of what could be cut, that simply can’t be affected...

Sports scholarships for athletes are ringfenced through the UCD Foundation and Ad Astra, so they could not be affected by the levy. The levy currently doesn’t fund them. Student societies staff are civil servants and cannot be made redundant.” Captain Murphy later clarified that given the annual deficit from the operations costs would cause the many services to “ultimately be under review.”

GRADUATE Uthra Lakshmi is studying an MSc in Food Business Strategies at the Smurfit Business School and she is running for the position of Graduate Officer. Laksmi says that the role of Graduate Officer will give her a great opportunity to put the Smurfit campus on the map.

Lakshmi’s understanding of the Students’ Union for representing 30,000 student and “standing up for their rights, representing them in a fair way and giving them a voice,” shows in her awareness of the amount of student casework that the Graduate Officer is required to manage.

Lakshmi showed a basic understanding of what potential and common issues graduate students will face and how she can help students with “anything to do with students and their academic council, any sort of issues with their professors, module coordinators and any other personal conflicts as well.”

Lakshmi was also able to identify two boards that the Graduate Officer has a seat on, namely the Academic Council and Governing Authority (GA). However, she displayed a lack of knowledge of the Student Union’s council structure, stating that “the three sabbatical officers and one graduate officer, we all have the speaking rights,” failing to mention the class representatives, College Officers and Campaign Coordinators who also attend student council. Lakshmi also incorrectly stated that there were 4 total sabbatical officers, when there are 5.

With little SU experience under her belt, Lakshmi believes that “Smurfit Business School has no connections, premise-wise, to the Belfield campus.

But it has given me an extra edge to campaign myself out here because I represented Smurfit for various events.”

If elected Graduate Officer, Lakshmi would aim to increase the time she spends on the Smurfit campus, form one day a week to “at least a couple of hours thrice a week.”

When asked about her views on UCD joining USI, Lakshmi was unaware of what USI was as an organisation. When told that USI is a national representative for third level student unions, she said that she would support UCD joining the organisation, “we need more of the representation coming from larger universities like UCD.” Lakshmi admitted that she has not yet read the proposed amendments to the SU constitution and does not know “what is at stake, so I’d say that the people who are doing the job right now know what they’re doing.”

Similarly, Lakshmi did not know what the Student Centre Levy was or that students were being asked to vote on its extension in a policy referendum alongside the executive elections.

When she was given a brief explanation that a proposed extension to the levy was intended to fund the expansion of the Student Centre facilities, she remarked, “I am for it, I would support that,” seemingly without knowing the issues raised over the lack of clarity around the budget, prioritisation of facilities for construction

Uthra Lakshmi

Bringing cultural events to the Smurfit campus and the possible result of a ‘No’ vote in the referendum.

Events make up a significant proportion of Lakshmi’s manifesto. “We need representation from the Students’ Union [on the Smurfit campus] having a little booth at least, to kick start any networking [events] if you want to start anything. People are reading newsletters but they aren’t really going to any events.

If you send an event notification from UCD, it’s that we have to come to UCD to do that.” Low engagement with SU events is something that has constantly plagued the union in the past, especially among postgraduate students, Lakshmi believes that there is an interest for events on the Smurfit campus, citing coffee mornings and a free headshot event for graduate students this past year. Adding on that, Lakshmi wants to increase the frequency of events for graduate students “it should not just happen in Belfield, it should happen in Smurfit. We have a great restaurant there that can be used to conduct these events.” Lakshmi would like to hold

more cultural events such as culturally representative and fitness events that are happening on the Belfield campus, brought to Smurfit.

Discussing the postgraduate workload, especially for graduate students who must take on teaching assistant roles in tutorials and lab demonstrators, Lakshmi believes that these students should be allowed extensions on their deadlines.

“Financially, whatever support you can give, I’d fight for them,” Lakshmi believes that the Union should fight

to give graduate students “a little at a time” in terms of aiding the reduction of fees.

Lakshmi supports a more radical activism, giving the examples of sit-ins for students, when the Union does not see the progress it is looking for. Lakshmi then goes on to say, on the difference between EU student fees and Non-EU student fees, that she does not believe she will try to close the disparity between the fees, “there’s nothing to comment there...I think it’s fair play.”

“Events make up a significant proportion of Lakshmi’s manifesto. “We need representation from the Students’ Union [on the Smurfit campus] having a little booth at least, to kick start any networking [events].”

7

GRADUATE Conor Anderson is currently pursuing a Masters in World Heritage Management and Conservation through the school of Archaeology. He currently serves as the class representative for this course.

While he has a passion for unions and the work that they do, and despite his work as class representative bringing him onto the council for the student union, he is seemingly unclear of certain key aspects of the role he is applying for. When questioned, he was able to name two of the three boards on which the Graduate Officer is mandated to sit, despite checking his notes before responding. As well as this, when asked who sat at council and who had speaking rights, he did not mention campaigns coordinators, to which both criteria apply.

Anderson also was unable to answer when questioned on how much time the Graduate officer was mandated to spend on the Smurfit campus per week, a key aspect of the role which has proven to be a contentious issue for his predecessors at times. He thus was unable to answer the latter half of the question, which was whether or not he would expand the hours required as per the constitution of the students union, which currently stands at one day a week.

In relation to the Smurfit campus, one of the main aspects of Anderson’s manifesto regards increasing engagement between the Union and Smurfit Ambassadors. When questioned on how he intended to do this, he replied that he would let the Ambassadors guide the process, saying that “their system seems to be working pretty well”, and that he would simply allow for greater communication, as he had heard that a member of the team had approached Torris with an idea earlier in the year, the specifics of which he had no information on.

However, he does clearly have a passion for the role, with engagement and advocacy both being mentioned throughout his interview and his manifesto. He mentioned several times that advocacy was at the heart of the role and engagement is at the core of his manifesto. He states that he wishes to make “the role more relevant” and spoke at length about how this is inspired by his own experience as an international postgraduate student who found it difficult to establish a social network before he got involved with the

Conor Anderson Pushing the Graduate Office forward

union. Due to this, he wishes to expand the work the union does to reach out to postgraduate students by expanding the realm of graduate specific events on campus. He believes that through this, not only will the union increase its engagement with postgraduate students, it will also aid postgraduate students find a network on campus through which to socialise. However, he also stated that he does not feel that

“He states that he wishes to make “the role more relevant” and spoke at length about how this is inspired by his own experience as an international postgraduate student who found it difficult to establish a social network before he got involved with the union.”

8

this lack of engagement lies solely with the union, as postgraduate students are “just busy, we’re really really busy”.

When asked how he planned to balance planning and organising events with the preexisting aspects of the role, namely time spent on case work, his response was simple: “Time management”. He continued, saying that he had “tricks and tips” which helped him to keep on top of his workload this year, which he is assured will continue to help him if elected, remarking: “I haven’t turned in an assignment late yet”.

However, he has no ideas more specific than networking events, and no outline for when or where they might happen, although he did say that he wanted to prioritise events at the start of semester when new students are arriving.

His lack of specific information was a running theme throughout the interview, with Anderson saying early on that “during the changeover, over the summer, that’s where I’ll get the indepth knowledge.” He backed this up

by referring to his ten years of industry experience, showing that he might have an easier time picking up the technicalities.

When asked about how he perceived his predecessor’s time, Anderson spoke positively about Torris’ role in ensuring that the new e-thesis programme was due to be run in house, and overall viewed Torris’ actions as Graduate Officer favourably. When asked if he would do anything differently, he responded that he would simply “build on what he’s done and just expand it”, with an emphasis on expanding public knowledge of the role and continuing to prioritise case work and advocacy.

Anderson currently does not have a stance on UCD joining the USI, however he feels he “probably will”. Anderson does not endorse any other candidates, however he did take the opportunity to compliment his opponent, Uthra Lakshmi Dharani.

GRADUATE

analysis: the graduate race

The race for the Graduate Officer is one that never receives as much attention as the other sabbatical races, mostly due to the limited voting pool of final year undergraduate students and current masters students. For the past two years, Niall Torris has held the position, running unopposed in both of his elections. It was this year that Torris brought the Graduate Officer role on par with that of the more glamorous President, Campaigns and Communications, and Welfare; with the Seanad registration campaign being the shining jewel of his tenure. His success with the role is one of the reasons that the race is contested, this election season. But what are we to make of the candidates looking to succeed him?

At a brief glance at both their manifestos, each candidate approaches the role in a different aspect, highlighting different concerns they feel need to be addressed. On one hand, Conor Anderson’s manifesto focuses more on the advocacy of student rights, whereas Uthra Lakshmi lends the majority of her manifesto to promoting events for graduate students on the Smurfit campus.

With very little previous SU experience, both candidates are coming into the role with half the information required. Anderson was unable to

answer questions on what boards the Graduate Officer sits on and how many days of the week the Graduate Officer is constitutionally obliged to hold office hours on the Smurfit campus. Lakshmi did not not know the different groups that make up student council or the fact that there are currently 5 sabbatical officers within the Union. While both candidates are passionate about the role, and undoubtedly have good intentions to strengthen the ties between the Smurfit campus and the Belfield campus, this lack of knowledge in relation to both the university and union’s structure will only be of detriment to them implementing any successful and long-lasting change.

Another area of concern is the supposed casual nature both candidates had to the referenda being voted on by the student body. Anderson, while not holding a stance on whether UCD should rejoin USI, his passive remark on believing that UCD “probably will” join shows a carefree and frankly uninterested attitude that will not serve him well should another referendum be called.

Lakshmi, on the other hand, making a split decision to support rejoin, despite only being given a brief explanation of what USI is, shows an eye-opening trait to make decisions without considering the other possibilities or ramifications.

This was only strengthened when Lakshmi said that she would be in favour of the extension the Student Centre levy, despite having to be explained what the Student Centre levy is and that the intention of extending the levy is to fund the development of the Student Centre facilities.

Both candidates have some understanding of the part student casework plays in the role of the Graduate Officer, with Lakshmi prioritising casework as the primary function of the officer.

Lakshmi explained her understanding of “anything to do with students and their academic council, any sort of issues with their professors, module coordinators and any other personal conflicts as well” as falling under the remit of the Graduate Officer. Anderson also acknowledges the casework aspect of the role, but emphasised increasing networking events on the Smurfit campus, stating that he intends to rely on “tricks and tips” to keep on top of his workload for the year. To their credit, both candidates shared the ideas of increasing networking events on the Smurfit campus, with Lakshmi having a clear plan of where the events could take place, showing that they have done their research in obtaining graduate specific events that will gather interest

among their peers. It will be interesting to see if the cultural and fitness events that Lakshmi has planned, should she be elected, gather much interest, as the lack of fitness facilities on the Smurfit campus is an issue that has been brought to council before.

As both candidates have a background as international students in UCD, it was surprising to see that only one candidate specifically addressed the issues faced by international students.

While Anderson only mentioned the networking events to aid international students in acclimatising and developing their contacts, Lakshmi mentioned visa requirements and the issues with booking appointments with the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS). Despite not having any clear and definite plans on how to advocate for faster appointment times for international students, the fact that she mentioned it shows she is aware of the issues faced by most international students, be they undergraduates or postgraduates. Surprisingly, Lakshmi was of the opinion that the disparity between the fees for EU and Non-EU students was “fair play” although, later she said that the Union should fight to reduce student fees “a little at a time.”

9

EDUCATION Brian Treacy is a final year Social Science student, running unopposed for the position of Education Officer in the upcoming UCDSU elections. In past UCDSU elections, one-horse races have had the unfortunate side-effect of producing under-prepared candidates - individuals who don’t feel the same pressure to dot the I’s and cross the T’s of their campaign and manifests. Thankfully, Treacy shows no signs of succumbing to this affliction, but instead demonstrated a refreshing level of preparation during his interview.

Treacy is highly complimentary of Stephen Crosby and the rest of this year’s sabbatical team, saying he sees his role as “to continue the work of the current Students’ Union…but also bring new ideas.” He prides himself on remaining above all a student first, someone who can represent the values of those he represents. In terms of new ideas, Treacy’s manifesto is awash with plans – almost to the point of its own detriment.

The proposed accommodation funds, recorded lectures, and detailed assignment calendars during registration come across as a rush of promises, one on top of the other, without a clear layout of how they’ll be implemented. There are so many varied and underdeveloped policies crammed into one small 2-page manifesto, that the sentiment unfortunately comes across as slightly naïve. Following the interview, though, it becomes clear that this interpretation, and perhaps the manifesto itself, does Treacy does a disservice – here is a candidate with vision, an education officer who’s done their homework.

Repeat and resit fees are the eternal Everest of Education Officers, the issue closest to UCD students’ hearts (and pockets). As those who have gone before him, Treacy states that he will advocate for a reduction in these fees, but, more unusually, introduces an alternative solution to the problem. “As well as reducing the resit and repeat fees, I would like to look into why students are failing.” Citing previous research by UCD registry and UCDSU, Treacy claims that students are “failing because of a lack of guidance...and the heavy workload”.

While a UCD review will investigate this more fully over the next few years, Treacy states that he wants the solution to focus on preventative methods, placing focus on the significant fail rates in UCD. Treacy says he wants to help those “at the borderline of failing… to flourish” rather than “trying to alleviate the damage of the cost.” While this might be a more palatable approach for university policymakers, UCD’s repeat and resit rates remain the highest in Ireland and a key

Brian treacy

An Education Officer who has done his homework issue for many UCD students.

Treacy has already met with the UCD Registry and discussed plans for “an online system that allowed students at the start of the year to see the assessments that they had” during the registration phase – in other words a condensed calendar of all assignments, presentations and class tests. He hopes that this will allow students to pick modules more appropriately and spread out their assignment dates as suits them.

According to Treacy, UCD registry is keen to implement this scheme and is willing to implement it as soon as they can; he would simply serve as the student voice to help keep the structure accessible to student users. Combined with a series of SU-run seminars on how to answer different assessment formats, Treacy seems optimistic that he will be able to alleviate some of the pressure

Treacy says he wants to help those “at the borderline of failing… to flourish” rather than “trying to alleviate the damage of the cost.”

10

on students, and lower fail rates. In addition to his communications with the Registry, he references dialogue with UCD Careers concerning seminars with industry leaders.

Accommodation is not usually considered under the remit of the Education Officer, but Treacy says he views it through a ‘holistic’ lens, the current housing crisis is one of the key ‘barriers’ keeping students from entering or participating fully in UCD. He says that of the approximate €25,000 budget the Education Officer manages, he will be aiming to put the bulk, approximately €18-19,000 towards an accommodation support fund. However, in a campus of 32,000+ students, this amount might be considered a drop in the UCD lake.

Treacy does not seem unaware of this, while the Education Officer has a limited budget to offer, he mentions goals of petitioning both UCD and the government for further supports.

Pending changes to the SU constitution mean that the role of Education Officer is shifting more towards campaign organisation, an area which Treacy seems keen to prioritise, referencing his intent to act on this both within his manifesto and several

times during his interview. He supports a more “radical form of trying to get funding to solve the issue – along the lines of protests and marches, [but] also social media”. He has spoken to several lecturers with expertise in housing and states clearly that the housing crisis will likely be his dominant campaign issue, one on which he hopes to collaborate with the new C&E officer.

While some of his aims, such as the introduction of audio-recordings in all lectures – for which he proposed an optimistic ‘opt-in’ strategy for engaging lecturers – lack full structure; for the most part, Treacy’s campaign is one with a vision that is sorely lacked by many other candidates in other races and years. It is clear he has been thorough in his research and proactive in organising meetings with relevant campus actors.

On more general topics of the SU, Treacy seemed measured and informed.

His stance on the extension of the student levy is tentatively supportive, on the condition that students should be the ones to benefit from any developments, and UCD is held accountable for providing new facilities as promised – with no additional charges or constraints following construction.

WELFARE

úna carroll

Providing a holistic approach to student welfare Current Disability Rights Campaign Coordinator Una Carrol is running for the position of Welfare Officer on a three point platform of “improving the system”, “inclusion and representation”, and “Your health and Wellbeing.” Úna has also been a class representative, and for a short time was the secretary of the newly founded Disability Inclusion and Awareness Society (DIASOC). When asked about further experience, Carroll highlighted the large number of marches and conferences she’s participated in due to her role in the union, such as the Ending Sexual Harassment and Violence in Third-Level Education (ESHTE) confrence.

Carroll’s vision for the role is somewhat holistic, but not different from previous Welfare Officers. She has a clear grasp of what the role entails, including sitting on various boards within UCD, campaigning for policy changes in welfare related areas, and working on individual student casework. Her vision of the union itself is somewhat more unusual, as she describes it as a family, saying “it provides a sense of community, a sense of care...It’s a family module, I believe, inside the students’ life, and it’s a huge part of students’ life, be you

involved in it or not.”

Politically, Carroll aligns herself with the “ideology of Labour, and the Green Party”, but says she’s “not really involved with a particular party.” Although she understands why UCDSU left the USI (Union of Students in Ireland), she supports rejoining, saying “I believe USI is a great organisation that has a lot of benefits...I see that we could be a great credit to USI and them to us as well.”

Carroll also supports the proposed new constitution, citing the re-inclusion of an ENTS officer and the changes to the Campaign Coordinator roles. Carroll has not yet decided what way she’s voting on the Student Centre Levy extension and she doesn’t endorse any other candidates.

Her proposals to improve the Student Health Services (SHS), is to continue to lobby for greater funding for counsellors and space, but also to promote the group therapy, mutual aid fellowships such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and other cost effective services already offered by the SHS. When asked if group therapy could prove problematic for some people as their anonymity was far from guaranteed, Carroll replied “if you’re comfortable enough, that might

be a friend made rather than a detriment to you...I don’t think you can stop people from forming friendships...a lot of students may benefit from fellowships without actually knowing it”.

Carroll promises on her manifesto to ensure disclosure training “for society executive members and all council representatives”. As not all council members are mandated to receive this training, however, Carroll explains that “I wouldn’t make a point of mandating certain people to do it, I’d make a point of making it available”. She also would like to bring in rapid HIV testing and reduce the cost of the STI checks currently offered by the health services.

When asked how these were going to

be paid for, Carroll said “I’d rather not go into pricing and logistics right now, but we’ve definitely discussed it...It’s definitely realistic.” She confirmed she was already in talks with the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre about providing disclosure training.

During questioning on her experience as Disabilities Rights Coordinator, the work of her predecessor Amy Hassett was brought up. Hassett was receiving funding from Supporting Partnerships And Realising Change (SPARC) to produce a series of videos about disability access on campus. These were given to Carroll at the start of this year but as of yet have not been published.

When asked why they haven’t been published, Carroll replied “because they haven’t been finished, first of all.

And second of all, there was a lot of mix up with SPARC...the staff member who was working on them is no longer a staff member here...but having met with people in the career development office we have been able to get that started off and back on track.”

During her short tenure as secretary of DIASOC, Úna was involved in infighting which brought into question her ability to work as a member of a society and a union representative. As covered in the College Tribune earlier this year, Carroll had informed DIASOC committee that “anything deaf/ISL (Irish Sign Language) related has to go through her”, and claimed that the society would need permission from the SU to run events or contact people regarding ISL. When asked if she had instructed the society to leave ISL events to her, Carroll said, “there was no instruction...we kind of agreed that...we would split up tasks, some tasks would be managed by myself under SU’s remit, and some would be managed under the society remit”.

However, according to text messages sent to DIASOC committee by Carroll, seen by the University Observer, she wanted to “tackle as much if not all deaf related stuff” and that “as an SU coordinator [Carroll] want[s] to be the person doing everything Deaf/ISL related.” This was not presented as a two way discussion with DIASOC, nor did DIASOC ever agree to let Carroll tackle all ISL events and campaigns herself.

When asked about her relationship with the society now, Carroll said, “I don’t have a relationship with any societies really”.

“Current Disability Rights Campaign Coordinator Una Carrol is running for the position of Welfare Officer on a three point platform of “improving the system”, “inclusion and representation”, and “Your health and Wellbeing.”

11

WELFARE George Merrin is a final year Science student running for Welfare Officer. He has been involved with the Students’ Union since his second year of college and feels that the Union “should be a way of welcoming students into UCD, and to tell them all the good things that UCD has on offer.” He also feels the Union should be a place for students in crisis to receive help, as well as being a force for lobbying.

Merrin says he has chosen to run for Welfare officer as he has “friends who have gone through things, myself included.” He also says he has experience in dealing with these difficult situations; “I think that if someone came to me with any sort of issue I think I’d be able to answer it, or at least point them to where they could get the answers.”

While he admits he does not have much experience in SU campaigns, he says he knows people who have been involved in these campaigns, and he “knows what it takes to be involved with the SU.” He is against UCD joining USI, believing that “we would lose some kind of autonomy, UCDSU would not be able to cater specifically towards students in UCD, but you would have to be thinking of Ireland as a whole.” On the other hand, he supports the new proposed constitution, “for the specific reason that it split the C&C role (into C&E and ENTS), meaning C&E could focus more on campaigns and ENTS could focus more on entertainment.”

In his manifesto, Merrin talks about his belief that Healthy UCD should be promoted more, as well as his plan to provide more food options on campus.

When asked how he planned to do so, he admitted that it was not solely the task of the Welfare officer, but that it was down to the Welfare officer in “reaching out to the different cafes and asking them if they would provide certain foods.

I know Pi, to the best of my knowledge, has a Halal option everyday.” He also highlighted the importance of advertising the different food options on campus, to allow for more students to avail of them.

In terms of students with specific dietary requirements, Merrin raised the issue of UCD banning all sugary drinks on campus, which he said could be a risk to diabetic students who may need to raise their blood sugar levels.

On the topic of mental health, Merrin plans to revamp the mental health initiatives that the Union currently offers.

“I felt that Mental Health week this year was not very successful. If I were to be elected, the first thing I would do would

George Merrin

A candidate who wants to revamp Welfare

be to look at it as a whole, with each day dedicated to a different aspect of mental health.” Merrin would go about doing this with a t-shirt campaign,“different people would wear the t-shirts around campus with different slogans like ‘Are you okay?’, and the more people see them the more they know that there are people to talk to and it’s not something that has to be kept quiet.” In terms of the work done by previous Welfare Officers surrounding campaigning for improvements to the counselling service, Merrin believes they have been “reasonably successful” stating “when you go to the counselling service, obviously there are lots of options for external counsellors, which is all well and good if you have the means to go to an

“Merrin says he has chosen to run for Welfare officer as he has “friends who have gone through things, myself included.” He also says he has experience in dealing with these difficult situations.”

12

external counsellor.”

Merrin has also talked about his wish for SHAG week to be extended to different buildings around campus, although he has not spoken to building managers aside from Newman and Ag. He said that his experience as auditor of ScienceSoc has shown him “the difficulties in renting spaces in the Science building, so I know there are ways around it if you know the right people.” He wishes to further utilising the concourse outside James Joyce Library, due to the volume of students that pass through it everyday, stating that the Student Centre is too far away from the main campus for enough students to engage in events taking place there.

Merrin also discusses wishing to include LGBTQ+ and disabled students more in SHAG week in his manifesto.

While he admits that he does not know “a lot” about how to include disabled people, he does want to highlight the rise in HIV diagnoses in Ireland in the last number of years. In his manifesto, he includes his intention to revamp the Consent campaign run by the union, suggesting one day a week be reserved for a specific topic i.e. ‘When drugs and alcohol are involved’. “This could be a

day of SHAG week, like having a speaker in to talk about how drugs and alcohol don’t mean consent.” Despite this, he does not feel that having speakers in to discuss these issues are particularly effective. “If people aren’t interested in the talk, they’re not going to go to it. That’s why I think we need to have big movements.” He highlighted the ‘Slutwalk’ from 2015, which he said has remained in his mind since then.

The cost and availability of sanitary products on campus is another point raised in Merrin’s manifesto. “If I were Welfare officer I would try to have sanitary products available in bathrooms on campus, both male and female as you don’t know who is using which bathroom.” He told the University Observer that students could only purchase sanitary products in Centra, and not in any of the Student Union shops.

Merrin seemed unaware that the Student Union provided sanitary products in the Union corridor, located in the Student Centre. He also gave no indication that vendors in each of the college buildings pay UCD, and the current Welfare Officer, Melissa Plunkett has faced push-back on this issue.

WELFARE

analysis: the welfare race Welfare is traditionally a role that requires a more diverse skill set than many in the union, because of the wide number of ways in which welfare is dealt with. This year’s candidates both bring something to the table, but both also leave other areas lacking. Carroll’s experience as a campaign coordinator leaves her with a wealth of knowledge about the role, having sat on committees with the current Welfare Officer in relation to disability rights. Merrin’s knowledge about the role is somewhat lacking by comparison, and it shows with some of his policy proposals and ideas.

In his manifesto, Merrin promotes a number of issues which are not necessarily the Welfare Officer’s remit. He mentions the work done by Healthy UCD and although he’s aware of certain issues around Healthy UCD, such as the effect the sugary drinks ban has on diabetics, he seems less sure of how to go about what he promises, which is promoting food for a wider range of dietary requirements. He makes no mention of the SU shops and has yet to try to talk to any of the eateries on campus about the possibility of expanding their menus.

He has spoken to Healthy UCD though, potentially something positive could come of this idea.

Merrin’s comparative lack of planning across the board for his policies is

apparent. Carroll may not yet be able to guarantee what she can provide for free from her manifesto, she at least seems to be talking to some of the right people. Merrin’s policies regarding his consent campaigns are woefully unclear, and during the interview he gave the impression that even the vaguest outline of the nature of these campaigns hadn’t formed, leading to guest speakers being proposed by Merrin at one moment, but then critiqued in favour of “slut walk” style visibility campains the next. If he’s serious about consent campaign, Merrin is going to have to be able to articulate a cohesive plan that he doesn’t backtrack on because of a single probing question.

Both candidates offer, in different ways, a vision of more awareness raising around mental health, and neither candidate has made any mention of lobbying for any change in the student health services, save the popular demands to increase funding and space. While encouraging those who would benefit from group therapy and fellowships is a good idea, and smart way of saving money without turning people away, it is troubling that Carroll doesn’t seem to understand not only that it is difficult for people in group therapy to remain anonymous, but also why that’s the norm in group therapy. A student who is recommended to group

therapy of a fellowship by Carroll may not want other members of their group engaging with them outside the setting.

Merrin’s offer of a guide on extenuating circumstances for those with mental health issues seems to offer very little extra than the current all-purpose guide for extenuating circumstances already offered by the SU. One policy area where the candidates genuinely differ in opinion is themed weeks. In recent years events like Sexual Health And Guidance (SHAG) and Mental Health week have been criticised for failing to capture the attention of the student body. Merrin proposes to revive SHAG week and spread it across campus.

As the former Science Society auditor, Merrin knows the difficulty student activities can have running events in certain buildings, but he has already picked places such as the concourse where activities can be booked, and has identified the distance of the student centre from many peoples classes as one of the major factors in this lack of engagement. Carroll, on the other hand, seeks to scrap these weeks entirely, and try to maintain a steady balance of events on these subjects throughout the year.

Carroll has shown a lack of ability to work on a team through her squabbling with the Disability Inclusion and Awareness

Society, as well as her blaming others for former-Disability Campaign Coordinator Amy Hassett’s videos being unpublished.

In situations where a Campaign Coordinator has a student society to work with, most obviously the LGBTQ+ society and the LGBTQ+rights coordinator, they have collaborated. Rainbow week, the UCDSU-LGBTQ+ awareness week, is officially organised by the SU, but there is always involvement from the society.

Carroll’s conflict and lack of collaboration with the society for Disability Awareness Week could not be said to serve well the interests of students with disabilities.

Students should hope that a future Welfare Officer could put squabbles aside in favour of worthwhile and lasting collaboration similar to that between the Union and the LGBTQ+ Society, which promotes and addresses the difficulties and needs of groups of students who might be particularly vulnerable.

Ultimately the question for voters is whether they want a welfare officer who is more approachable and lenient on his ideas, but lacking concrete vision or SU experience, or one who has mostly clear policy proposals, but has raised questions about her ability to work on a team, listen to other people’s opinions, or take responsibility when things go wrong.

13

C&C Katie O’Dea is a final year History and Politics student running for the position of Campaigns and Communications Officer.

She is running for the role because she believes there is a lot of potential, which she believes she is able to fulfil, to make a positive change to UCD students. O’Dea has been involved with the Students’ Union through her role as Environmental Campaign Coordinator, where she began the social media pages for Eco UCD and organised green week in collaboration with the LGBTQ+ Society and Labour.

She is also a former Chair of UCD Labour.

In her manifesto, O’Dea states she wants to “bring back student activism”, leaning on the belief that the Students’ Union is “an inherently political organisation.” She would like to see the SU participate more in both national campaigns and ones inside UCD such as: housing rights, Climate Action, pushing for a reduction in student fees, as well as advocating for improved counselling services, gender-neutral bathrooms and affordable on campus accommodation.

She believes that next year more attention should be given to the consent campaign and identifies the possibility of a “know your rights” campaign as being of benefit to incoming students. When asked if she would support a more radical approach to student activism she agreed, but only after alternative avenues, such as dialogue, are exhausted.

She recognises the fact that as C&C Officer does not hold any board seats as a potential challenge to her activism, but plans to work closely with the SU president, who she believes would be able to bring required issues to the attention of university management.

O’Dea also believes that due to the new mandate for gender equality on university boards there’s a possibility she might sit on a board.

O’Dea’s experience as the Environment Campaign Coordinator and her passion for the environment are also expressed in her plans to support her successor to the role in continuing on the work on procurement and correct use of more segregated waste facilities and supporting Climate Action. However, her intentions to make on-campus accommodation cheaper for students, will put her in an awkward position with RES, whom she wishes to work with to introduce her “Great Donate” campaign.

O’Dea admits there is a “delicate balance between radical action and campaigning for certain things on-campus, actually trying to work with those same bodies...

It is just something you have to take as it comes, trying to stay on the good

Katie O’Dea

A candidate set on bringing back radical activism side of people, while at the same time, potentially putting pressure on them.”

Establishing more personal relationships between the sabbatical officers is a tradition O’Dea would like to see introduced, whereby the sabbats and college officers would bring in food to different buildings around campus and talk with students, and allowing for students to directly express their concerns and question the sabbats on their work. She believes this would facilitate dialogue between students and sabbats on other occasions as well.

O’Dea doesn’t believe the lunches would

“She believes that next year more attention should be given to the consent campaign and identifies the possibility of a “know your rights” campaign as being of benefit to incoming students.”

14

require too much preparation, given the sabbatical officer’s busy schedules and potential for spontaneous engagements concerning student cases.

Despite her involvement with societies, according to her manifesto “many students rarely set foot in [the Student Centre]” and would also like to avail of the Student Centre and hold more events there.

O’Dea would like to put on a drag show during Rainbow week, which has traditionally been produced between Dramsoc and the LGBTQ+ society.

She believes, that as C+C Officer, she can help improve upon previous drag shows by promoting it more, which would help achieve better results, saying “we’re always stronger when we work together.” O’Dea states that she would like to continue typical C&C functions like organising nights out and inviting guest speakers.

Looking to improve the SU’s communications by posting more videos across the SU’s social media platforms,

O’Dea wishes to continue weekly Instagram videos updating students on the SU’s work and hopes to ensure that the SU’s website contains correct information to date. O’Dea believes it’s an issue it has not been updated and explains that when the site was originally made it was too technically difficult to manage “for anyone that’s not a coding expert”. According to O’Dea, a new website should be “up and running by the summer time”. She plans on using her previous background in maintaining websites outside of UCD in her management of the page, noting that she is experienced in the more creative aspect of website upkeep than the technical, but envisages collaborating with more technically experienced SU staff.

When asked about rejoining the USI O’Dea stated that UCD left “for a reason in the first place” but that she is open to “[engaging] in dialogue” on the topic.

PRESIDENT

Joanna Siewierska

“It’s a hopeless situation but I am not going to be a hopeless President” Joanna Siewierska is a 4th year Law and Social Justice student and is running for the position of President. Siewierska attributes her desire to bring her passion for social justice and student rights to the union, as the reason she is running for SU President. Describing the union as “a collective of voices, students coming together, and fighting together for things that are important to them,” she believes that there are a number of issues where she may not be the best spokesperson for and would like to use the union as a platform for student voices. “No union or no organisation is a one man or one woman show, so I would be very careful about that.”

While Siewierska has a very-student led vision for the union, she lacks the knowledge of the current structures and operating procedures that a presidential candidate needs to be aware of. She was unable to identify the boards that the President sits on, mentioning only the Governing Authority, being unaware of the Finance, Remuneration & Asset Management Committee. Unlike other candidates, Siewierska was able to identify all parties who have speaking

rights at Student council meetings. Her vision for the Union, however, does not disclose her personal stance on USI, the proposed constitution and extended Student Centre levy policy, stating that “I’m a bit careful when it comes to referendums to tell students what I want, because I think it is very important that people say what they want.” Although she did state that she believes that the “old constitution needed a revamp, and needed a lot changes. I really hope that students take a thorough read of what’s in front of them and remember we do need changes, but we also need the right changes.”

Listing her experience as an elected officer on the Irish Second level Student Union (ISSU), and working as a trainer for class representatives on a European level, Siewierska would like to provide all future class representatives in UCD with the training that was introduced this year and grow “the design of training...that is available to every single representative.”

Currently, class representatives are not mandated to receive any training from the Union, but may be offered it.

Siewierska believes that “when you put

yourself forward to represent your class, you’re interested in what that entails.

You’re interested to some extent with what the Union does, whether that’s the social aspects of the Union or more lobbying aspects of it.” She wishes to keep the full training that every class representative receives to the basics, reassuring “that we will prepare you for every aspect of the role.” These include an introductory class representative training “to understand the function and the structure of the Union,” particularly the channels of communication available to them within the union and making the organisation of class night outs as “hassle-free as possible.”

In favour of radical forms of student activism, Siewierska believes that while they are important forms of civil disobedience, “they should never be the first actions either.” If elected, in the planning of campaigns for the Student Union, escalating actions should be one of the options, but it is not something Siewierska “would push for or try to force people to do if they didn’t want to.” If the Union are meeting roadblocks with staff, Siewierska believes that “we need to try different ways of raising our voice.”

Taking a pragmatic view on national-level protests, Siewierska says that apart from attending rallies, protests and lobbying “there isn’t really that much else we can do other than vote in elections.” With regards to the housing crisis, Siewierska doubts that progress the Union has made on its lobbying efforts, “have we gone very far when we look at what is being built on campus? I don’t know.” However she wishes to continue the lobbying work of the Union on affordable and quality accommodation, and “keep pushing in the channels that we have to push in...it’s unacceptable that students are turning down offers because they don’t have a place to stay.”

Extending the invitation to the Dublin Tenants’ Association and other tenants group on campus to host sessions on their rights, is just one of the events Siewierska has planned for her term. “It is a hopeless situation but I am not going to be a hopeless President.” To build on the events that the SU currently hosts, Siewierska doesn’t believe it is necessary to adjust the budgets to make the likes of Green Week, RAG Week or SHAG Week bigger. “When I was involved in the ISSU we had shoe-string budgets and we managed to make national media, and we managed to make noise about things that are important to us.”

Pop-up events and pushing campaigns throughout the year, instead of just having weeks dedicated to one theme, is a possible avenue that Siewierska would like to pursue.

Speaking about the lack of knowledge students have about the SU, Siewierska was able to give an example of supplying free sanitary products in the SU corridor.

Commending the Homeless Period drive to collect sanitary products for people in need, she was unable to identify the Mature society as the instigator of this drive. She did say that she would be open to working with any groups to support this campaign.

“If elected, in the planning of campaigns for the Student Union, escalating actions should be one of the options, but it is not something Siewierska “would push for or try to force people to do if they didn’t want to.”

15

PRESIDENT Michael Geary is a 4th year Animal Science student running for the position of President, who is serving as Ag Soc auditor for 2018/19, and has had no direct experience working with the UCDSU before. The presidential race is less crowded than it has been compared to recent years, which might allow for each candidate to be examined more closely by the students who will elect them. However, this is not a good sign for Geary, who’s manifesto and ideas become less clear the more one looks into them.

Geary’s manifesto is not short on big ideas, such as ensuring that “students who are required to undertake PWE (Professional Work Experience) receive a living wage” and ensuring that he will “work with my Welfare Officer in order to further progress the union’s work on promoting positive mental health.”

However, as well intentioned as these ideas may be, he offers no concrete plans on how they will be implemented or achieved.

His lack of experience working with the UCDSU shows, as he does not appear to be quite clear on what the role of the Students’ Union is. When questioned about the boards the President sits on, he is unable to name them, nor does he know what FRAMC stands for (the Finance, Remuneration and Asset Management Committee is one of the most important boards on which the Union’s President sits), nor does he know who sits on the Student Council, as well as not being sure on who has speaking rights in it. He gives equivocal answers on the topic of UCD re-joining USI, stating that “there’s pros and cons to joining the USI” which include the money saved from not being a member.

He trusts that the students will “make the right decision again next year with regards to joining USI” and stating that he has no personal opinion on the matter when pushed, aside from stating that “at the minute it seems to be working very well, not being a member of USI.” His answers on what direction he wants the Union to go in are equally vague, answering that he would work alongside the campaigns officer next year, doing “whatever we need to do” when asked about the issue of protesting and a more radical approach to student politics. He wants the Union to “collaborate with societies” and would like to see the Union help them to fundraise and to “promote UCD as a community.”

The campaigns Geary feels are most relevant to students are

Michael Geary A community built on fundraising

those surrounding accommodation and mental health. On the topic of accommodation, he wants to “push as a union to make sure that we limit the amount of disruption that’s going on in student accommodation” caused by the construction work on campus, giving little in the way of detail on the matter. He also suggests in his manifesto that, as President, he would like to see students informed of their rights as tenants, telling the University Observer that “landlords are taking advantage of students across the country” and that the Union needs to “campaign for cheaper accommodation.”

Speaking on the state of mental health services in UCD, he acknowledged that they were under pressure, and suggested that the SU might “fundraise for these worthy causes.” He wants the Union to promote good mental health,

“Geary’s manifesto is not short on big ideas, such as ensuring that “students who are required to undertake PWE (Professional Work Experience) receive a living wage.”

16

citing Lust For Life, a mental health awareness charity, and suggests the Union could get speakers such as Bressie in to talk to students on mental health and wellbeing. When asked what type of student might need the most support from the Union, he says that “all students need protection. I consider all students as equal.”

On the topic of students with disabilities, Geary answers that the union will do “whatever it needs to do” to help those students, and that he would be speaking to someone on the issue to gain a greater understanding. About students who are in Direct Provision, Geary states that the Union should be offering them “whatever support they need, whether it be for accommodation or whatever.”

The notion of fundraising comes up again when he suggests that the SU could raise money by fundraising in order to increase the number of rental laptops available to students in the library, as well as making more rooms available for students to study in. He says that “the assumption is that every student has a laptop, and that is far from the truth.

A lot of students rely on the services that UCD supply.” When pushed for a response on whether or not UCD should fund these things directly, Geary answers that “it’s trying to work alongside them”

and that “resources are very limited”, but that the Union should have more of a stance and push harder to get these services for students. He believes that it’s both affordable and achievable.

One idea that Geary comes back to several times is the idea of building a stronger sense of community. He says that presently the union “lacks a sense of community” and wants to bring back the sense of community he sees in the Ag faculty into the union. He wants to improve RAG week and aims at boosting attendance by talking to students and asking them what they want to see and do, citing AgSoc’s successes with events such as Take Me Out. Geary’s focus on community and fundraising is commendable, but his stances, or lack thereof, on issues such as protest, USI, and making demands of UCD, demonstrate his lack of understanding on the precise role the Union has traditionally played. His background in societies may go down well with students who wish to see the Union move in a different direction, but his lack of knowledge on the workings and role of the Union may cast some doubts over how effectively he will go about enacting these changes if elected.

PRESIDENT

Declan Kelly

A sprawling manifesto with emphasis on community On first instance, a number of Kelly’s proposals seem to be either extremely difficult or impossible to achieve.

Although it’s difficult to imagine that his desire to establish a shop, presumably run by the Union, in a “footfall heavy location” on campus could come to fruition, there would undoubtedly be an opportunity to engage with the university with regard to commercial spaces in the new on-campus accommodation, currently under construction behind the Sutherland and Quinn buildings.

His desire to campaign and lobby for reductions in student fees, accommodation and parking fines, and repeat and resit fees is admirable. The Union in its current state would benefit to a great extent from being seen to tackle UCD’s internal cost barriers to continuing education. It would be a surprise, however, to see a significant reduction to any or all of the university’s revenue-raising measures. Given the state of public funding for universities in Ireland, it would take significant goodwill on the part of the university to budge in the face of Kelly’s proposals for fees and fines reductions across the board, and in particular, “relentless negotiations concerning the reduction of repeat fees.”

Kelly’s manifesto comments on student grants and funding are vague: “spear heading [sic] conversations with the university and the government”,

if SUSI fails to deliver grants on time, does little to address the concerns of students in need who, by a small margin, might not qualify for grants. Equally, his promise to “fight for the protection of grants in the upcoming budget” might fall short for students who wish for the expansion of the student grants system.

While Kelly commits to “[continued] efforts...to provide the cheapest student fees as possible”, his manifesto does not mention efforts to lobby for increases to core university funding.

A plan to see the UCD Ball ‘return’ to campus is a welcome one. As ever, the notion of an end-of-year ball on campus will only truly die when the Union stop lobbying for it. However, at this stage, the UCD Ball has not been held on campus since 2011. The cancellation of the Dun Laoghaire-based festival ‘The Ball’, which had widened the pool of students to those from other universities and ITs, might have sealed its fate - without a tradition of hosting such an event, securing acts that will draw students in will be difficult; security logistics and local resident’s opposition would also be significant risk factors, all of which Kelly would have to be aware of if the university and garda representatives were willing to open negotiations.

Additionally, the continuation of an oncampus ball would depend on how a hypothetical 2019/2020 ball plays out - poor ticket sales, security issues and

anti-social behaviour could just as easily mean another 8 years before a Ball returns to campus. All this being said, the potential reintroduction of a full-time Entertainments Officer could foreshadow the return of the UCD Ball, but that is a discussion for another election.

Kelly’s focus on building a community is a mix of the effective and the unlikely.

The introduction of regular shuttle buses from the Clubhouse into the city centre is simple and, if advertised well, could keep the Clubhouse busier throughout the year. His proposal to improve, assist and form new societies indicates that Kelly may not be aware of the distinction between the Union and the Societies’ Council. His goal of establishing ‘regulated busking’ on campus might not be as attractive as the open mic nights and performances arranged in the Clubhouse and elsewhere on campus by a number of societies including MusicSoc, MusicalSoc, JazzSoc, and LitSoc. It is unclear how a system of regulated busking would be any different to the current situation in which events held around campus must have the

permission of Estate Services.

While Kelly’s goal of ensuring ‘freein’ to clubs with a UCard is, to an extent, achievable (free-in before 11pm is a commonplace deal with societies and students’ unions), it is unrealistic and strange to imply, as Kelly does, that the Union’s President would have any sway over Harcourt Street’s alcohol prices.

Those students who do not drink alcohol may be vexed by the manifesto’s implication that they only attend social events once a month. However, Kelly’s plans for more zero-alcohol events and, in particular, for ‘fan zones’, seeking to piggy-back on the team and community spirits roused during the Rugby World Cup, are far from impractical and could easily be notable successes.

Students may think it odd that Kelly has referenced university world rankings as a benchmark of any future success, given that the rankings are often criticised for using flawed methodologies. His plans to provide an “elite standard of education” include seeking a reduction in the staff/student ratio, extending library hours and providing entrepreneurial and writing workshops. As UCD Library already provides writing workshops, the Union’s time resources may be better spent on other activities, like zeroing in on Kelly’s proposal for more plugs in the library.

Kelly’s manifesto is scant on details of his own experience, either as a team leader, society or club hack, or within the Union itself. The sprawling nature of his manifesto, itself a vision for a closer university community, suggests that he would work closely with other sabbatical officers, if not micro-manage their portfolios. While a number of his proposals, such as providing free sanitary products, free STI clinics and improving the Union’s SHAG week, are clearly in line with the proposals of this year’s welfare candidates, his focus on Ents might come into conflict with the plans of an Ents candidate-in-waiting if the position is reinstated.

Like all candidates’ manifestos, not all of Kelly’s promises are achievable, and many, such as across the board fee and fine reductions, directly conflict with and impact each other. If elected, he will have to take a more focused approach to reductions, and it would be worthwhile for him to spell out his priority in this regard before the election. Many students may identify his achievable Ents plans and ambition for record attendance and fundraising at RAG week as the most important aspects of his manifesto.

Declan Kelly was unavailable for an interview over the March break.

“[Kelly’s] desire to campaign and lobby for reductions in student fees, accommodation and parking fines, and repeat and resit fees is admirable.”

17

PRESIDENT

analysis: the presidential race This year’s race for President is a stark contrast to that of last year. Consisting of only 3 candidates, this year’s field is half the size of that contested towards the end of the Union’s annus horribilis.

Final year Law with Social Justice student Joanna Siewierska is the only candidate with Union experience, having organised the UCDSU’s class rep training this year. She arguably has the benefit of two year’s experience with the Irish Second Level Student Union (ISSU) and as a trainer with the National Student Engagement Program. What is obvious is her desire to see the Union become a place to empower student leaders and return to a more fundamentally political entity which seeks to “amplify [the] voices of students on campus.”

Declan Kelly and Michael Geary seem to envision a Union which acts more as a community facilitator than an overtly political group, although both suggest the need for accommodationrelated campaigns and express desires to promote better mental health on campus. Kelly and Geary both advocate for a Union-society-club collaborative approach to addressing mental health issues, but with little additional detail over each other, students might anticipate a more comprehensive approach to the issue at Hustings. Geary’s wish for students required to undertake professional work placement to receive a living wage may matter a great deal

18

to some students, but the question of whether enough students affected by the matter will be on campus to vote, leaves him vulnerable to the vaguer elements of his manifesto in relation to accommodation and education.

RAG week is a crucial element of both Geary and Kelly’s manifestos, with the former noting his Ag Soc experience organising community-driven charity events and the latter promising “record numbers in areas of attendance and funds raised”. Although societies are very distinct and separate from the SU, in terms of how they run, Geary’s time as Ag Soc auditor may indeed serve him well with the delegation and overall management of his fellow sabbatical officers, as well as garnering interest from volunteers to assist in the organisation of the week-long event. Events play a big part in Kelly’s manifesto, and the allure of a UCD Ball on campus might tempt some to vote for him, however unlikely the proposal. With few students in UCD who would have attended the last ball in 2011, many will identify it as a pipe-dream, judging him on the rest of his manifesto and the more realistic Rugby World Cup fan zones, Clubhouse shuttle buses and his environmental campaign #Trashtag Day, which would push for biodegradable and sustainable packaging on campus.

Siewierska remains steadfast in the belief that RAG Week and SHAG Week can be made bigger just solely through

“strategy,” a belief which may not hold up in reality, as previous sabbatical officers have reported a lack of interest from volunteers. Recent RAG Weeks have shown that UCD does not live up to the hype surrounding RAG Weeks in other parts of the country, so perhaps the candidates should consider creating charity fundraising events that better suit the atmosphere of UCD. Siewierska’s vision, on the other hand is campaign heavy. Siewierska recognises the impact of more radical forms of student activism, believing that other options should be exhausted first. In a similar, albeit non-committal, fashion, Geary stated that he’d do “whatever we need to do” to get student voices heard.

Kelly’s political and lobbying efforts are a mix of local and national, focusing on fee and fine reductions, vaguely lobbying local TDs “with regards to the housing crisis” and “lobbying the government... to achieve more affordable dwellings.”

Whether Kelly’s would support lobbying efforts constituting a more radical form of student protest remains to be seen at the Union’s Hustings debate.

Siewierska eyes campaigning alongside the National Homeless and Housing Coalition, the National Coalition to End Youth Homelessness, Dublin Tenants’ Association and Homeless Period Ireland to highlight issues of homelessness and affordable accommodation. Additionally, she seeks

to work alongside the Campaigns & Communications Officer and Green Committee to promote sustainability and hopes to “make noise” through Green Week, RAG Week and SHAG Week without necessarily increasing their budgets.

Neither Siewierska nor Geary recognised the Finance, Remuneration & Asset Management Committee, one of the most important boards on which the Union President sits. First contacted on 13th March, Kelly was unavailable for an interview over the March break. This may pose a harsh blow to Kelly’s campaign, as we’ve seen in previous years, namely Amy Crean’s presidential run last year, that presence on campus is crucial in promoting oneself and securing crucial votes. Kelly will only have Hustings on the 28th March to defend his manifesto against the scrutiny of voters and his opponents.

In contrast to Geary and Siewierska, Kelly’s manifesto is far broader, arguably encroaches on the portfolios of other sabbatical officers, and, in particular, a would-be Ents officer. Sabbatical officers often find themselves committing to and helping other officers to carry out their agendas, but Kelly would run the risk of getting bogged down between micromanaging projects and leading a serious commercial and political organisation with a regular annual turnover of more than €1 million.

EDITORIAL Editorial: Students should vote ‘No’ to extending the student centre levy - for now Without the €254 levy that UCD students pay every year, the student centre as it is today would not exist. It might have been smaller, or it could have been only marginally different to its current form.

However, the nature of the plan, the vision which UCD officials had in 2006, and the near-absence of facilities at the time meant that, regardless of whether the levy was rejected in a referendum held by the Students’ Union, it was inevitable that the student centre would have been built.

There is a similar sense of inevitability surrounding discussions over the proposed expansion to the student centre. The levy, in its current form, will end in 2023. On 1st and 2nd April, students will vote on the levy’s extension for a period of 20 years to fund a €70 million expansion to the centre.

While Student Services have

claimed that a rejection of the levy’s extension could result in the defunding of scholarships, staff redundancies and charging students for use of the gym, this is far from the case. While it is true that a deficit would exist if students do not agree to extend the levy at some point before 2023, there is nothing to say that the levy extension in its current proposed form cannot be rejected, reformed and voted on again. This argument is accepted by the very same officials proposing the extension.

All students are required to pay the student centre levy, without exception.

Students who spend a semester or full year abroad on Erasmus or on exchange are required to pay the levy, in full, despite being completely, or partly, unable to use the facilities. Those who choose not to engage in society and club life, and those who, for whatever reason,

do not use the gym, are obliged to pay the levy.

The student centre levy is not covered by SUSI grants, nor can tax relief be claimed on it. It holds the unenviable title as Ireland’s highest student levy.

UCD boasts a similar accolade in relation to its repeat and resit fees, which dwarf those of other Irish universities. When there is a crisis of affordability, and a well-evidenced perception that their university is fueling it, students cannot be asked to support the extension of facilities without assurances that student supports, which are available to all, are prioritised over facilities which benefit a sliver of UCD’s student population.

UCD’s sporting and society facilities have brought a privileged quality to student life and which would be greatly diminished without the student centre.

There is nothing to lose and everything

to gain from expanding the opportunities available to students. However, a ‘No’ vote would not reject an expansion, but instead reject a vague and opaque proposal which does not commit to inclusive development.

An initial rejection of the proposed levy in 2006 would not have scuppered the construction of the facilities as we know them, but would instead have opened up room to seek assurances on student support services and clearer priorities within the project. Student Services at the time famously promised free access to the pool and unlimited access to the gym - promises which have since succumbed to commercial needs.

This time, students should seek clearer commitments before what is surely an inevitable approval of the extension sometime before 2023.

A glutton for punishment, Katie O’Dea has signed herself up to labour away in the corridor, building on the foundation that “Ents” man Monaghan has laid in the past year. Talley isn’t sure if O’Dea is aware that the “foundation” set by Monaghan is akin to a sandcastle with the tide coming in.

Former Observer stooge, Brian Treacy is planning on “one-upping” the work that Crosby did this year, bringing students back to the old days, when their mammies would spoon-feed them and took them into bed, with a goodnight story.

Graduate Officer Niall Torris has finally been laid to rest....in the bosom of his long lost maternal figure, Mary Alice Higgins. In his stead, he leaves two tourist candidates with about as much knowledge of the union as the University Times has for what constitutes “ethical journalism.” Uthra “sign me up” Lakshmi wants to encourage students to forget

the books and learn some culture in the Smurfit campus. Archaeology student Conor Anderson, on the other hand, is using his mid-life crisis and lack of awareness to dig himself an even deeper grave than the ones he’s used to before Hustings.

Looking at this motley crew, Talley is safe in the knowledge that his dear friend RON is going to be busy over the next week.

Talleyrand Check your hope at the door you decrepit vermin, and enter the gates of Hell - It’s Election Season.

How long has it been since we slouched our way towards the voting station? Who has been impeached/ arrested/publicly shamed this time?

Let’s round-up the usual suspects of impotent, brainless SU zombies and see who will win the chance to masquerade as a “voice for the students” for the year, while updating their CV. The new found bitterness is a complimentary extra of the corridor.

In the President race, students will no doubt rejoice in the news that Barry Murphy has been physically restrained to his office chair, and missed the deadline for submitting his signatures. But don’t weep for him too much, word is Murphy enjoys being restrained as one of his kinks. The 4 3 candidates all hoping to pressure you into signing your soul away to their campaigns, include: the staple

Ag candidate, Micheal Geary, who does nothing to debunk the stereotype that Ag students can’t spell their own name (nice t-shirts, pal); the token female and SJW candidate Joanna Siewierska, who wants to focus on indoctrinating young, wide-eyed Freshers into the Union’s clutches and finally, the elusive Mr. WorldWide child registry resident Declan Kelly.

Of the candidates claiming to give a crap about your welfare, we have ladies’ man George Merrin, and Úna “Just-giveme-the-job-already” Carroll. Known by many as Katie Ascough’s GBF, Merrin has spent the campaign trying to wipe the slate cleaner than the ex-President’s search history after every national referendum. Carroll, on the other hand, has been showing how much she is into being a “radical” candidate, by destroying any chance of a meaningful connection with groups that might help her fulfil her role in the future.

EDITOR Brían Donnelly DEPUTY EDITOR Dylan O’Neill ART & DESIGN EDITOR Fiachra Johnston

CONTRIBUTORS Rory Clarke Heather Reynolds Laurence Childs Nathan Young Aoife Mawn Gavin Treacy Katia Gillen Orla Keaveney Fiadh Melina Brosnan Eleonora Dzhungurova

FRONT COVER Matthew Rose-Nel SPECIAL THANKS Eleonora Dzhungurova

The University Observer Vol. XXV - PHONE: (01)716 3837 - EMAIL: editor@universityobserver.ie

19

HUSTINGS

BINGO “Engagement”

Tom Monaghan launches into a monologue

A candidate attempts to tip-toe around the question

Candidate doesn’t understand the role they’re running for

(Monagh-logue)

20

Barry Murphy says the University Observer writes about him

Tom Monaghan spends 2 minutes repeating/agreeing with what someone else said

Someone mentions “capping repeat fees”

The College Tribune tweet a gif during Hustings

Fifty people leave after their candidate’s speech

Candidate says “I’m up for a protest if you are”

(Mon-splaining)

Candidate makes a joke that completely bombs

Candidate is asked about something controversial they said/did

Someone yells at the candidates

Candidate goes way over the time they’re allowed

Obvious plant for a campaign attempts to ask a targeted question at their candidate’s opponent

Barry Murphy blames UCD management

Convenor shuts down question from the floor

“I will bring the UCD Ball back to campus”

“This is more of a comment than a question”

Candidates suck up to the incumbent officer

A candidate is described as “the outsider”

Someone makes a joke about running uncontested

Someone accuses the college newspapers of being biased

Campaign managers watch their candidates bomb

Candidate inspires you not to vote for them

Someone attends Hustings in their county colours

Two or more candidates have the same colour t-shirt

Someone brings up the SU website

Someone mentions council minutes not being published

Male candidate doesn’t understand why everyone’s so offended