The CSC-Publications merger was always doomed to fail

The CSC-Publications merger was always doomed to fail

Shannon Connolly

The Central Societies’ Committee (CSC) and the Publications Committee are two of Trinity’s capitated bodies – and recently announced a proposed plan to set up a working group to merge the two. The CSC currently has the most votes at the Capitations Committee, which determines how funding for student groups is allocated, while Publications has one of the least, with only one vote. While it was continuously emphasised throughout meetings with the chairs of both committees that this was not an absorption of the latter into the former, I believe this claim to be fundamentally untrue.

The CSC, without a shadow of a doubt, has the most influence at Capitations should problems ever arise (they usually do not), with TCDSU having one less vote. However, a concern has seemingly arisen since the dissolution of the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU) last September – where will the postgraduate vote go? Undoubtedly, in the coming years, an argument of some sort will be made that it will go to TCDSU, and that’s only correct. They do (supposedly) also represent postgraduate students, and a postgraduate officer will likely be introduced to the union to make up for the lack of a union body for postgrads. However, this would mean that TCDSU will equal the CSC votes at committee meetings – something which, for some reason, stokes absolute terror in the hearts of the CSC. Something which was highlighted to a Publications meeting by the CSC Chair was that there has never been a squabble between the two – so why is acquiring the Publications vote into their own so important?

There is no doubt that many committees have felt TCDSU stepping on their toes in recent months

There is no doubt that many committees have felt TCDSU stepping on their toes in recent months. TCDSU tried to pass a referendum last term in relation to the Sports levy that students pay – which would, arguably, only fall under the Sports Union jurisdiction. The Sports Union actively condemned TCDSU for this, and ultimately, the referendum did not pass. There seems to be a growing fear among committees that in some form or another, TCDSU are “coming for them” – laughable for many reasons, partly because TCDSU can barely function themselves. But aside from that, I do not think the students’ union cares that much – they are, genuinely, only trying to represent what they feel are in the students’ interests. At our core, that’s what all of these committees aim to do: properly represent the interests of the students involved with them, and acquire the necessary funding from College to do so. That’s what it really comes down to: money. With the dissolution of the GSU, it is likely that College will be looking to relocate those funds to other capitation bodies – and those with the most votes will, most likely, come away with the biggest benefit. So, the CSC, though claiming they were acting in the best interest of keeping Publications alive, would also benefit from additional funding. There’s no denying that Publications has faced a difficult period in recent years; from executive members resigning, problems with handovers, and halting largely over Covid, there is a lack of contingency within the committee, and there is no denying that they would benefit from the full time employees of the CSC. However, I do think that it is quite ingenious to claim that this was only put forward in the interests of publications. The CSC would benefit; they would have an extra capitations vote, and would likely obtain more money. So firstly, how this merger was portrayed was a complete lie.

Secondly, the details relating to the merger were entirely vague. I was notified that the idea of a merger was being entertained back in January – and if they would have Trinity News’ support. Immediately, I asked for the details; I was told it was in early development, and may not even go to a vote this year. I said I would hear their plans, and would put it to my staff for a vote, because I was not comfortable making a call without consulting them on it. The details for the merger were vague; Trinity News would get its own office, we would benefit from more money, and we would have “complete editorial independence”. I asked what were the plans to ensure the latter – they told me they didn’t know and that it would be established by a working group. Funnily enough, months later, when meeting with CSC both as Trinity News and as Trinity Publications, that was still the same after – “the working group will figure that out”. So, secondly, there was actually very little thought put into the merger bar an initial idea – it was not thought out. I told the CSC that if they were to have Trinity News’ support at all, they must clear the hazy details of the proposal before putting it forward for a vote. This was not done.

How the merger was then announced to editors of Publications was nothing short of unbelievable – the press release was sent prior to the notification of editors who would be asked to vote on it two weeks later. As the only editor who knew of the proposal at all, and thought it to be in its infancy, I felt that preferential treatment had been given to Trinity News –which should never, ever happen. Trinity News is just one vote at Trinity Publications – every publication gets a singular vote, alongside executive members of the committee. Trinity News only votes once – so why were we the only ones aware of this prior to its publication? It was handled atrociously, and I believe the Chair of Publications was put under significant pressure to “push it through” before the end of term – again, begging the question: why? Why is this so immediate? Why could they not take their time, form a solid proposal, and then put it forward? The rushed nature made it seem nefarious, and thankfully, Publications voted against the establishment of a working committee to look into a merger.

A lack of communication, clarity and foresight ultimately sunk the idea of a merger before it even began, which really comes as no surprise. The whole thing was treated as though it was a favour to publications, something which I think is not at all true. There would be clear benefits for the CSC, and would be a “one-up-manship” against TCDSU. I think this was always going to fail, because it was not a good idea on paper – it may have been, if it had been developed at all.

Shannon Connolly is the Editor-in-Chief of Trinity News