6
THE UNIVERSITY OBSERVER 19 October 2010
News
news@universityobserver.ie
Getting a bad rep? Chief News Reporter
Despite the reduction in the cost of class rep training, Katie Hughes questions whether the event’s efficiency levels could still be higher
T
his year’s Students’ Union class representative elections took place at the beginning of the fourth week of the semester. The first Union Council followed at the end of the same week and the newly elected class representatives took to the countryside of Tullow, Co. Carlow, for their training on the weekend of the 8th, 9th and 10th of October. In previous years, class rep training was known, to an extent, as an expensive weekend away for members of Union Council during which numerous damages were incurred, a lot of alcohol was consumed and much fun was had – depending on one’s definition of fun, of
course. However, a great effort was made to re-establish the credibility of Students’ Union class rep training this year, as previous years’ training had led to the event being given the reputation that everything but a relevant educational experience was had by those involved. The atmosphere at class rep training this year will remain a mystery to most of us, as the attendees are not permitted to publish photos of the weekend on Facebook. According to UCDSU Campaigns and Communication Vice-President Pat de Brún, this measure was taken so as not to jeopardise the integrity of the weekend. However, seeing as this year’s training was deemed successful, there should be nothing to hide. Students, who annually pay money to the Union, should surely be allowed to see what their elected representative as well as their Sabbatical and Executive Officers are up to on their cost. As a part of their training, the elected representatives took a series of modules. These ranged from talks by the five sabbatical officers on their respective offices, to modules on the Union’s history, and current schemes that are in place, such as Quinn Healthcare, the loyalty card and a talk about the Union of Students in Ireland (USI). While these talks could all have been crammed into one, albeit hectic and exhausting, on-campus day, there may be a point in de Brún’s statement that the offcampus, three-day stay may encourage the ‘bonding’ of class reps and their Sabbatical Officers. This would serve well for the reps, giving them the confidence to question Sabbatical Officers on the job they
SU Campaigns and Communications Vice President Pat de Brún has defended the cost of class rep training.
are doing during the fortnightly Union Council. Credit must be given to de Brún for turning class rep training into a more credible, organised and educational experience. Hopefully this is a precedent that has been set for future years. However, the transformation made in class rep training this year in no way suggests that there are no issues remaining with the annual occurrence. Whether the event actually merits the €11,000 spent is questionable. Is renting the four-star Mount Wolseley necessary when training could just as well have been held on campus? Renting out the Astra Hall would surely have been cheaper and have resulted in the same outcome. De Brún defends the weekend away,
insisting that due to the “hectic schedule of modules”, keeping a high attendance of newly elected reps is more difficult on campus. Surely these enthusiastic reps, who promise their peers to be so outgoing, attentive and hard working during their election campaign, would want to attend all aspects of the training that would teach them skills required to perform to the best of their abilities. In a time of recession, the cost of the training must undoubtedly be a bone of contention. It must be kept in mind that the Students’ Union is partially funded by a portion of UCD’s student registration fee. As a student, are you happy to see your money going towards three days training, food and accommodation for your class reps? The spending of thousands of euro on
teaching university students how to set up Facebook groups and organise class parties appears to be a waste in some peoples’ eyes. However, it’s up to you to decide for yourself – question your class reps, ask them for help, make sure they do their jobs. If that’s not done, a whole lot of money will have gone to complete waste. Despite this year’s training making a €4,000 saving on last year’s extravaganza, €11,000 is still far too much to be spending on a jaunt to the countryside. There are other facilities that could be utilised closer to home, and for a significantly lower cost. Whether future years’ training will remain in line with this year’s process and not revert back to the previously demonstrated layout and style, or lack thereof, remains to be seen.
Driving us mad In light of confirmation that the proposed “Blue Line” rapid transport service will run through UCD, Amy Bracken asks whether the plan is astute from a financial viewpoint
News Editor
E
very day of term, if you happen to be near a UCD car park between the hours of nine and five, you will undoubtedly see a string of cards queuing and hoping that a space will soon become available so that their occupants will be on time for their classes. A student driving to college told me recently that they have to time it so that they are at UCD at least two hours before their first class if they are to have any chance of finding a parking space. The issue of car parking on the UCD campus is hardly a secret, but measures are being taken to rectify it. UCD has made an application to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council for further parking spaces to be added to the campus. Additionally, it was announced during the week that UCD is to benefit from the proposed Blue Line rapid transport service that is hoped to be approved, built and put into operation in three to four years. While both proposed initiatives are still in the debating process, it is expected that the Blue Line will be passed. The question
of whether or not the additional parking spaces will be given the go-ahead is debatable. The plan proposes for the facility to provide 583 car spaces, 617 bicycle spaces and 81 motorcycle spaces, which would arguably have a small but effective impact on the parking problem in UCD. Yet there are undoubtedly issues with the application, notably that it will require the university to compromise on its already minimal green space, which is a necessity within urban areas. UCD already has a reputation for being a concrete jungle, and by sacrificing it’s green space, it would only add to already dull and unwelcoming outlook of the campus. Should the plan go ahead, it is also expected to lead to the removal of five of the campus’ tennis courts in order to provide space for the construction of the car park. Given that the plan proposed would provide only minimal relief to the issue of cap parking, is compromising on all this space really the right way to go? UCD is attempting to maintain an image of a centre for excellence, not just in academic terms, but also in terms of excellence in sports and extra-curricular activities. A campus as large as Belfield with hardly any green space hardly creates an image of excellence. Moreover, placing a car park on what was once a sports ground will not do any favours for it in terms of encouraging interest and victories in sports. In the long run, the plan is hardly worthwhile, as the government is proposing for ten per cent of all vehicles in the country
UCD’s car parking shortage has been problematic for a long time.
to be run on electricity by 2020. For this, UCD will need to ensure that ten per cent of its parking spaces have a recharge facility in ten years time. If time and money are going to be put into the building of a new car park and space is to be allocated for it, how is this plan worthwhile if more money and space will be needed to ensure the recharge facilities (for ten per cent of all those driving to Belfield) are to be implemented by 2020? My scepticism about the project is not just due to the practicalities of the issue, as funding must of course be considered
in the case of any proposal like this. UCD has debts of around €11,000,000. Thus, the funding of this scheme will more than likely have to come from the students, just as is the case with the new Student Centre. Some might argue that as the parking issue mostly affects students, given the proportion of students to staff in UCD, that we should pay for it, as we will be the people who will ultimately benefit from it. Yet this is doubtful if we are to consider that tennis courts are to taken away to pave the way for it. A vital element of university is socialis-
ing and getting involved in extra-curricular activities. If sports facilities have to be taken away for this proposal, then the likelihood is that further sports facilities will be taken away by 2020 in order to create space for the electrically powered car recharge facilities. While we appreciate the initiative of the university in applying for the extra parking spaces, especially given the volume of students who now choose to drive to college, it seems that sacrificing campus grounds and spending money that nobody has is hardly a viable solution to the problem.