USI went head-to-head, and all Sabbatical Officer Candidates had their say. Now, it's down to students to vote.
USI: Yes, No, and Chris Clifford
Aaron Duke of the Yes campaign and Wedge Egan of the No campaign were joined on stage in the first discussion of the night by USI President Chris Clifford. Duke admitted his knowledge on the workings of the USI were not up to the standard they should be, which led to Clifford doing a lot of the work for the students campaigning to rejoin USI.
Clifford’s speech, which was filled with motivational quotes, focused on stressing the need for UCD to be at the table when it comes to dealing with the government on the issues pressing students. “You can’t change anything by sitting on the sidelines. Decisions are made at the table, not on the bench”. He pointed out that he is the only student representative in the Higher Education Authority, and that he wants UCD to be represented in those discussions. He then stated “If I was you, I’d be infuriated that you have no voice at our table.” Clifford finished strongly, stating “You’re a potentially powerful organisation. But there’s no sadder words in the English language than ‘they had potential’.”
Egan revealed that his main two reasons for campaigning against rejoining USI were that the referendum wasn’t passed through UCDSU council, and that students don’t know what USI is. He briefly praised Clifford’s character, before saying “the problem with USI is that there’s no continuity”. He also criticised the fact that USI were not involved in recent talks to save the 145 bus and claimed that they weren't present at protests on topics that meant a lot to students.
The conversation quickly moved to the €5 membership fee that each student will have to pay should the yes vote win. Egan claimed the €5 would be better spent on a “crisp clubhouse pint”, while Clifford made the audience aware of the USI app that is currently under development which will give USI members access to many discounts across food, transport and other industries. The No campaign were unwilling to concede this point, with Egan revealing an alternative discount card from his pocket which he claimed already offered many of these discounts. Clifford then claimed the app would provide UCDSU direct access to vendors around the country to work with, and easier access to Freshers Week services, which he argues would increase revenue for UCDSU.
Egan’s ultimate point was that if UCD students vote to rejoin the USI, they will inevitably be unsatisfied with it and vote to leave again. Citing the €3,500 that it has cost UCDSU to run referenda in recent times, Egan said that the money is wasted and that if the yes side wins, in another few years UCD students will vote to leave USI again and it will be “another €3500 down the toilet”.
Campaigns and Engagement Officer
Hazen Griffin is running an uncontested campaign for Campaigns and Education Officer. A question was posed to him by the Chair regarding what tangible campaigns he will run that will directly impact UCD students. Griffin replied with an affirmation that direct action towards the housing crisis is one of the most important campaigns you can run. He also noted that he wishes to enact awareness campaigns too, such as awareness for housing scams and visa difficulties. Another question was asked regarding a statement made in Griffin’s manifesto against “pointless referenda”. The Chair noted that referendums are a key way for students to enact change and must be held by passing of council. Griffin replied that he does respect the role of students and council, but in the most recent referendum vote, “people did not understand the referenda.”
The University Observer asked how realistic Griffin’s plans for restructuring the SU website are. Griffin stated that he has spoken with other candidates regarding this goal. He highlighted that ten years ago, the website was made in-house. Moving away from SquareSpace could reduce costs, promote the clearer communication of information, and allow student talent to shine in the creation of a new website. A question was posed from the floor regarding how serious Griffin is regarding the race, especially due to it being uncontested. Griffin replied that he is extremely disappointed by not having an opponent, but he would not have run his race any differently if he were opposed. Regarding his sometimes humourous approach to the race, Griffin said that it is just his nature, citing his role as Harpy Editor for the University Observer as an example of this. Griffin then made the point that if he takes the role, he will put his own spin on it.
Welfare Officer
Emilia O’ Hagan is running as the only candidate for Welfare Officer. She reaffirmed her commitment to the six categories of issues mentioned in her manifesto, stressing her belief that all her points are achievable despite being ambitious. In response to a question posed to her by the Chair, she outlined her top two priorities. O’Hagan plans to continue work on setting up the food pantry in the student center in order to combat food insecurity and improve accessibility to students across the university. She also highlighted the importance of enacting campus wide harm reduction policies, and wishes to ensure that students, especially freshers, have access to drug testing kits. O’Hagan noted that a majority of people who come to receive drug testing kits have already acquired illegal substances, and that ensuring safe drug use is a massive part of maintaining welfare on campus. In addition to this, she stressed the importance of ensuring that students, particularly international students, are made aware of abortion access procedures in Ireland.
The University Observer asked O’Hagan how she would address the flaws in period product distribution on campus. She highlighted the lack of period products in disabled bathrooms and said that she will make sure that these gaps are addressed. She added that she would advocate for an allocation from the welfare budget to the distribution programme, in the case of any funding withdrawals from the HEA. In response to a question from the floor regarding UCD’’s outsourcing of mental health supports, O’Hagan said that she would lobby for more counselors, and set up issue-specific support groups as a short-term solution.
Entertainment Officer
Lily Gnojewski is the only candidate running for Entertainment Officer. She introduced herself and reaffirmed the main point of her manifesto: to organise events that students care about by listening to their requests and being open to receiving feedback. She then stated, referring to UO’s bingo: “Gonna try and blitz this bingo”, and then went to complete all the squares she could as fast as possible. This fun and carefree attitude would later be called into question by a member of the audience, who accused the candidates not facing opposition of not taking their campaigns seriously. Gnojewski answered that she can be serious if necessary, but that jokes are a good way to show students that the SU isn’t as serious and inaccessible as it is sometimes seen. The Chair asked Gnojewski about her proposal on reinforcing SU’s collaboration with societies. She stated that she believes there is room for improvement and promises to work on that. The Chair also asked Gnojewski how she would answer to possible critics on her proposals being based on ‘waiting for student feedback before taking action’ as passivity, considering all Officers’ mandate to approach students actively. She simply answered that she believes that asking for students’ opinions is the right thing to do, as it will lead to the organisation of better events, which will in turn attract more engagement. However, she also affirmed that if people do not want to come up and talk, that’s not the end of it.
The University Observer asked Gnojewski how she was planning to fulfill her promise on making events more accessible. Her answer was direct and straightforward, explaining that the key is to listen to students, their ideas, understand what they want… and prepare all sorts of events everywhere on campus based on that feedback.
Graduate Officer
Shreyansh Jagtap is unopposed in the race for Graduate Officer. He was faced with questions both from the Chair and members of the audience over the points his manifesto he will be focusing on. In response to the Chair, his primary focus will be on the creation of an online forum to have more accessible information for graduate students. Following on then, a question from the audience asked whether he will prioritise reducing graduate fees or accommodation costs, giving a conflict between the two. In response to this, he does not see a reason why he cannot work equally hard to achieve both, “If I have the chance, I can do both.”
A major point of his manifesto which saw questions from the Observer, was around his ‘flagship networking event’, specifically who will benefit from it. He highlighted that he wants to be as inclusive as possible, with networking opportunities for all schools, and enough space such that anyone who wants to will be able to attend.
This community was a major focus for Jagtap, and he highlighted this in response to a question from the audience as to smurfit. He seeks to build a greater sense of community between Smurfit and Belfield, with the focus on the shuttle bus between the campuses, and a greater awareness of the facilities, or lack thereof, available in Smurfit for incoming International Students, so they can make an informed choice.
Education Officer
Matthew Mion was asked by Chair Niall Torris how his plan to make all electives ‘GPA optional’ will benefit students, and how he would achieve it. Mion said students are currently taking electives for the easiest assessment options, when they are supposed to take them to enjoy them, and experience subject areas outside of their degree. He also said he believes if UCD Boards are presented with an evidence based approach as to how it would benefit students, he is optimistic for positive feedback.
It is then put to Mion that some of his policies are “wishy washy”; Mion says perhaps this is the case, but it’s because he will not commit to one solution for a problem which may require multiple rounds of “throwing out ideas” until it sticks. The University Observer asks Mion how he plans to navigate the serious environmental dangers AI possesses, and challenge the university on ethical AI use. He states that by educating students on how to “efficiently” use AI, they will effectively reduce the need to spend lengthy amounts of time battling with ChatGPT to gain a sufficient result, and hence reduce the overall use of AI. He also says AI will make some degrees redundant, and as UCD is spending “a gazillion euro” on building their new AI Institute (the University Observer notes this number is likely an ‘overshoot’), these resources should be better put into students.
A question from the floor asks Mion, considering his goals are ambitious, why students should vote for him over RON, and a candidate who could have more tangible goals. Mion references his interview with the University Observer, “I’m not here to make big ass promises” he can’t fulfill; He says his goals are tangible, and are founded on his background in science and desire for an evidence based approach.
President
The only contested race in this year’s Executive Election, the race to be the next President of UCDSU, was the most hotly anticipated panel of the night. This race is being contested by current Education Officer Tia Cullen, current Campaigns & Engagements Officer Saskia McCormack-Eiffe, and union outsider Michael Roche. All candidates stated their case as for why they should be elected President before being asked questions by the Chair, The University Observer, The College Tribune, and from the floor.
The University Observer asked Tia why students should put their faith in her as President in order to boost engagement, considering her current tenure as Education Officer of the SU. In her manifesto she claims that most students in UCD do not feel represented or engaged by the SU. In response, Tia argued that the majority of her current roles focuses on ‘casework, exam supports, and uniform sales’, to name a few. She argues her track record in the capacities her role requires has been ‘very positive’, and noted that ‘any event’ run by herself has been positive.
Saskia was asked a question of a similar vein by the UO, regarding her track record as C&E Officer and the lack of Direct Action seen on campus this year, framed around her manifesto point of improving student accommodation. She argued that there has been direct action this year, and that positive work has been undertaken on several boards and committees. She also pointed to the Student Union Action Group for Housing (SUAGH) as proof of successful campaigning and engagement.
Michael was asked, also in the context of housing, how realistic his ambitious housing goals are. He wants to oppose the 2% annual rent increases, secure a four-year rent cap, and proposed the building of a ‘high-rise Merville.’ He stated his intent to rebuild the relationship with UCD Estates, and argued, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” before adding, “Direct Action is on the table [...] It won’t be a sheet and a whatsapp group.”
The Chair asked Roche about his ‘undershoots’ and ‘overshoots’ during his campaign, questioning ‘lofty’ campaign goals, and asked about his political affiliations. Roche responded, “You’ve questioned my trustworthiness as a candidate” and argued “overshoots are a result of lack of transparency.” He continued, citing the recent addition on the SU Website ‘UCDSU Financial Summary’; “I’ve already given you more transparency than the union has ever seen before, and can ensure the Union lasts another 50 years.”
On political affiliations, the candidates were asked what steps would be taken to avoid Union busting from Government parties. Michael argued that it is best to go through the official channels and pointed to his personal relationships with several Government ministers and TDs. Tia took a different line of approach, she argued, “We shouldn’t be friends, we should be advocating for what students want.” Saskia agreed with Tia’s answer and added, “we should be non-partisan and continue fighting.”
A question from the floor was aimed in the direction of McCormack-Eiffe and regarded a “[failure] to carry out [your] duties” as a Sabbatical Officer this year. The Chair ordered a rephrasing of the question, as he argued it had to be answerable by all three Presidential candidates, but it followed a similar vein, albeit in a less accusatory, personal tone. McCormack-Eiffe responded, saying, “I recognise what meetings you’re talking about” that she allegedly failed to attend, and said that her reason for not attending was due to “familial obligations.”
Tia commented that campaigns hasn’t been a key focus of her role this year, but argued “for events I’m involved in I always give it my all [...] I work with students to campaign for change.”
Roche waded in on this issue, albeit not as a current sabbatical officer, adding that blame for a lack of engagement cannot be solely placed on this year’s sabbatical team. He argued that it would be easy for a bad actor to come along and undermine the importance and power of the SU, and placed engagement at the forefront of his plans.
And with that, Students’ Union Executive Election Hustings has come to an end (I know, tragic...)
Voting opens on Tuesday 1st April and is open until Thursday 3rd April. Results will be announced on Friday 4th April.
Contributing Writers: Oisín Gaffey, Lucy Warmington, Adam Schmitz, Orla Mahon, Juan Carlos Luque Lopéz, Safreen AC, Aaron Ó Muircheartaigh