€3,500 is a lot of money to spend on a referendum that has failed to meet quorum twice in one year...
This Article Was Last Updated On 06/12/2024 12:40
The cost to the UCD Students’ Union of the recently run quorum referenda on November 26 and 27 was approximately €3,500. This covered postering and material costs for both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaign teams, and the hiring of voting system ‘MyVoice’, which enabled students to vote through a link sent to their email, or through one of the four voting stations set up by the Students’ Union in the Village, James Joyce Library, Student Centre, and Smurfit.
That is €3,500 spent on a second attempt at a referendum run only eight months prior, which had failed to reach quorum. If the SU had any hopes that they could not only rally a yes vote, but also reach quorum for the first time since 2019, they needed to hugely build on their last failed campaign from March 2024.
The SU knew this, and in the vain of achieving it, they took two steps to see it through. Last semester, this referendum ran alongside the SU elections, with all votes for candidates and the referenda happening on the same day. This semester, UCDSU decided to give the referendum its own campaign, allowing them to dedicate sole attention to it. Further, they passed a motion in an emergency meeting of council on Wednesday 23 October, which mandated the entire sabbatical team to campaign for a yes vote.
With these two mechanisms in place, they primed themselves for a 12.5% turnout, which did not come to pass.
One of the early issues arising from the outset of the referendum was the referendum itself. Every society, union or student grouping has struggled with engagement in the wake of the 2020 Covid-19 Pandemic, that is a fact. The SU is no exception to this; they have struggled with engagement since the pandemic, but have begun to gradually increase their voter numbers. However, what we have seen over the past few years is that it is hard enough to get UCD students to vote for people running for sabbatical positions, let alone on mere words of a constitution. Therefore, the task at hand was grand; trying to engage 12.5%, or roughly 4,000 students, on the matter of the SU’s constitution.
Furthermore, the confusing wording of the second question, with it seemingly implying students from various courses could apply for random Class Rep seats, was a communications error within the referendum itself, which went unclarified and un-simplified by the ‘Yes’ campaign.
Before we even got to the campaigning period, another issue arose.
The date was set for Tuesday 26 and Wednesday 27 November 2024; UCD Christmas Eve, and just days away from the 2024 General Election.
The referendum was due to take place earlier in the semester, according to Campaigns and Engagement Officer Saskia McCormack-Eiffe, but due to a mistake in the wording of the motions required to be put to council before a referendum could be granted, this process was delayed. The University Observer was informed by the Chair of Council on Monday 7 October that a pair of motions had been provided and would be heard at the next council meeting (October 14th) which would propose that UCDSU hold referendums. Due to the wording error that McCormack-Eiffe referred to, rather than hearing the motions on October 14, council was subject to an emergency meeting nine days later on October 23, via zoom.
When the official UCDSU Press Release was published confirming the referendum on October 29, the General Election had not yet been called, but it was widely suspected by the majority of those in the media that it would be held on one of two days; November 22nd or 29th.
Another issue with the date of the referendum was the fact that it fell during the last week of class before the study period began.
The James Joyce library was, and continues to be, jam-packed with stressed-out students who are running out of time to study for their exams or submit lengthy assignments, which are almost always due before exams kick-off.
Questions must therefore be asked of the decision to hold this referendum at the end of November. Surely it would have been better to either run the referendum in October, if the SU still wanted to give it its own campaigning period, or February, before the sabbatical race kicks off. Could it also not be argued that having it being held at the same time as the sabbatical elections would actually be a good thing? By capitalising on students who are able to be engaged with personalities, the deploying of a constitutional referendum to the ticket could potentially be beneficial, rather than the opposite.
Finally with regards to the timing of the referendum, when you look at the week of the election, it was an incredibly busy week, both nationally and within UCD itself. TACO (Take Active Care of Ourselves) Tuesday was held, and Wellness Wednesday was also due to be held on the second day of voting (but was subsequently cancelled), and on Thursday 28, UCD held its annual Christmas Day. From a logistical point of view, what this meant was that the Education, Welfare and ENTS officers were busy running their events, which understandably coincide with the end of classes, and were unable to be fully involved in recruiting students to vote.
In the weeks leading up to voting day, both the yes and no campaigns lacked visibility, they lacked attention, and they lacked coordination.
For the no campaign, this didn’t matter; they only had to do as much as the yes campaign did, as the yes campaign’s biggest feat was always going to be meeting quorum.
Both The University Observer and the College Tribune covered the referenda when it was announced, however, just one week before voting would begin, the only promotion of it from UCDSU was a single post shared to their Instagram. If you missed that, there was no way of knowing a referendum was going to happen.
Hustings was only advertised on the day it took place; it was an online zoom call, and only six people were in attendance: the University Observer, the College Tribune, the leaders of the Yes and No campaigns, the Campaigns and Engagement Officer Saskia McCormack-Eiffe, and the Returning Officer. There was therefore nobody in attendance who was going to be swayed to vote either yes or no, or to vote at all.
It was only on Thursday 21 November, just five days before voting would begin, that posters appeared around campus. For many students, this was the first time they heard that a referendum was even happening. It allowed just two days where students would be on campus (Friday 22 and Monday 23) for the SU to influence students to vote yes.
By voting day, the ‘yes’ (@yesyesforucdsu) and ‘no’ (@notoquorumucd) campaign instagram accounts had only two singular posts each, and the yes campaign had only 45 followers. When the SU posted on their story that voting had begun, it seemed most students were scratching their heads and asking, “voting for what?”
Most of the in-person voting stations were unattended for large portions of time throughout the day, meaning nobody was there to persuade students to cast their votes, or to even explain what this referendum was all about, anyway. Only C&E Officer McCormack-Eiffe of the sabbatical team could be seen around campus on the day to be encouraging students to vote.
The complete lack of campaigning by any sabbatical officers in a referendum they had just been mandated by council to campaign for, doomed this election to the fate of last years; it was never going to meet quorum.
The College Tribune reported on Friday 6 December that the union's campaigning and communication strategy was 'limited by restrictions on the Sabbatical Team, who apparently could not campaign for a "Yes" vote during working hours.' This appears to contrast the mandate of which they were assigned at the aforementioned Emergency Counil on October 23.
With an almost non-existent campaign, confusing wording, and a lack of momentum, the question arises on whether or not the SU should have run the referenda in the first place. The admittedly high level of votes they did get (10.6% turnout) came courtesy of the new ‘voting through a link in your email’ system, and had this not been an option, voter turnout would have been at an embarrassing level for UCDSU.
Further, to run a campaign at a separate time to the sabbatical elections doubles the election costs; the voting system must be hired twice, posters and materials ordered on two occasions, and in this case, the referenda had not been accounted for in the 2024/25 UCDSU budget. Yes, budgets are expected to fluctuate, but this unanticipated cost of €3,500 must be accounted for elsewhere, and the budget re-balanced. Whilst running referenda should be encouraged, it is frankly an insult to all students who are supported by the funds and activities of the Union to run a €3,500 campaign without putting any foresight or group-effort into promoting it, regardless of whether or not you support the questions of the referenda.
In terms of the UCDSU budget, €3,500 is a vast amount of money that, if spent, should be respected.
These referenda could have made an impact on the union, it could have made it easier for them to make radical constitutional changes that enable them to better lobby for UCD students. Yet as a campaign, in terms of management, admin, energy, and promotion, it felt futile; it felt lacklustre and wasteful. It lacked all the necessary ‘oomph’ that would have made students interested and engaged. Yes, voter turnout was the highest it has been since 2019 (though one could argue that this did not arise from the campaign run by the SU) and it was still not enough to meet quorum. It seems that UCD students, through their disengagement with the SU, won’t notice the €3,500 they have just poured down the drain.
Please, God, let this be the end of this referendum.