As and from 1st August I have a new boss. He was elected by his peers on Saturday in a ritual that would rival the Papal election in Rome. At least the TCD one doesn't rely on smoke signals to inform the plebs and this year I found out via Twitter about 10 minutes after the final ballots were counted.
So what to make of the results? Well firstly it shows again how difficult it is for an outsider to make headway with the electorate. While Des Fitzgerald's stint as VP for Research in UCD may not be looked on kindly with TCD academics, he is the sort of person you could see leading a top class university but I guess not one with whom he forged an innovation alliance for 4th level activity.
Secondly, it shows that you have to put in the hard slog to win voters. John Boland's low key campaign didn't connect beyond those who already knew him. On the other hand Colm Kearney's high profile campaign with posters around campus, ads in the college newspapers and lots of public meetings didn't click either. So is there such a thing as over-exposure in a closed ballot where it is possible to meet almost all the electorate?
Thirdly, the results show a pretty clear divide between the East End and West End of campus. With increased pressure on teaching and research funding, and the Arts feeling the squeeze already, will having another Provost from the back of College accelerate the move away from the ideals of liberal education? Or will Paddy Prendergast be able to harness Jane Ohlmeyer's team of supporters across the Arts and deliver the revival that Ohlmeyer was promising?
Finally, on a personal note, it was disappointing to not be eligible to participate in the process. Despite being academic enough to teach, supervise students and vote in the academic constituency for Board, I am not deemed sufficiently academic to elect the Provost. During the recent restatement of the Statutes, there was a lot of debate over extending the franchise further but the Fellows refused to agree. In the election campaign, the candidates all made similar noises on the issue so it will be interesting to see if anything comes of it. If in 10 years I am still disenfranchised then I won't be a happy camper.
Showing posts with label College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label College. Show all posts
Monday, April 4, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Comparing Conferrings
Conferrings are the formal end of a persons course of study in a University where the Chancellor or other shakes hands with the graduate and hands over the piece of paper with the magic words written on it. As a TCD graduate and staff member I have attended a good few such ceremonies in the Exam Hall. Way back when I also attended my sister's graduation from St. Patrick's Drumcondra and another when she attended NUI Galway. Then in the last month or so I have attended the DIT ceremony where my mother was awarded an MA and then yesterday I was in the Helix for the DCU conferring where my wife earned her MSc.
It seems to me that the conferring ceremony is a good indicator of the ethos and style of the university. The TCD one, for example, is completely in Latin and formal black-tie is required for all graduands. This matches up with the university's sense of history and pomp. DIT hold their graduations in St Patrick's Cathedral which immediately gives a sense of gravitas but the ceremony itself is held at a fast pace. I also liked that each PhD had a brief synopses of their research read out by their supervisor before receiving their award.
However, of all the events I've attended I think I enjoyed the one in DCU the most. The venue, as a modern concert hall, can't be matched for comfort or sightlines - there isn't a bad seat in the house. There were two interesting speeches during the event from the Chancellor and the President of the university and the post ceremony reception was of the highest quality. The only downside of the DCU graduation is the DCU anthem which was blasted out during the two academic processions - wouldn't be high on my list of favourite songs.
It seems to me that the conferring ceremony is a good indicator of the ethos and style of the university. The TCD one, for example, is completely in Latin and formal black-tie is required for all graduands. This matches up with the university's sense of history and pomp. DIT hold their graduations in St Patrick's Cathedral which immediately gives a sense of gravitas but the ceremony itself is held at a fast pace. I also liked that each PhD had a brief synopses of their research read out by their supervisor before receiving their award.
However, of all the events I've attended I think I enjoyed the one in DCU the most. The venue, as a modern concert hall, can't be matched for comfort or sightlines - there isn't a bad seat in the house. There were two interesting speeches during the event from the Chancellor and the President of the university and the post ceremony reception was of the highest quality. The only downside of the DCU graduation is the DCU anthem which was blasted out during the two academic processions - wouldn't be high on my list of favourite songs.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Going Forward in 2011
New Year means resolutions and predictions, most of which will be abandoned by the middle of January. So in keeping with the spirit of the season here are my brief guesses on the next year.
General Election
The General Election will be some time in March. FF won't do as badly as polls suggest, Labour not as well with the end result around FG 63, FF 45, Lab 38, SF 10, Others 10 leading to a substantial majority for FG/Lab.Presidential Election
David Norris will manage to get 4 councils to support his nomination but his transfers will help Michael D Higgins to just take the Áras from FG.The Economy
The rising tide of European economies will drag Ireland back into low growth but without much in the way of job creation.The North
Business as usual heading into the Assembly elections with SF looking to become the largest party and hold the 1st Minister position but being pipped at the post by DUP. Other Unionists and SDLP fail to make ground.Dublin
The Dublin Mayor elections will not happen and the greater Dublin area will continue to suffer due to lack of joined up thinking. Metro North and the Interconnector will continue to be postponed but the Incinerator will push ahead.TCD
Paddy Prendergast to be elected Provost with a fairly sizeable victory with no outside candidate to come even close. Well founded mutterings of closed shop to be heard.Sport
Leinster to win the HEC and Magners League, Ireland to get to the Semis of the Rugby World Cup, Bohs to find a sugar-daddy to bail them out, Ireland to loose in a Euro-2012 playoff, Down to beat Kerry for Sam, Cork to retain McCarthy.Online
I'll keep blogging and tweeting much to the annoyance of my missus. In 365 days I'll come back and see how well my crystal ball was working. Happy New Year to all!!Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Electoral Reform
A while back I posted some thoughts on our voting system and suggested a few changes that I would make to it. After last night's Oireachtas Committee meeting in TCD it seems like a good time to return to it. At the event, students gave a brief oral summary of a written submission they had made to the committee. Some of the presentations focused on the mechanics of elections such as using the Gregory method for transfer of surpluses or order of candidate names on ballot papers. Others focused on participation through extending voting to ex-pats, addressing the gender imbalance in politics and reducing the voting age to 16. Each of the presentations was the responded to by a member of the Oireachtas committee.
There followed a debate chaired by John Bowman with Noel Dempsey, Ivana Bacik, Justice Frank Clarke and Prof Ken Benoit joining Sean Ardagh and Jim O'Keefe on the panel. There were also contributions from the floor by Joanna Tuffy, Gemma Hussey, Prof David Farrell and many members of the public. A lot of the discussion centred around women's participation in politics and whether there should be gender quotas built into the system. Other topics covered included the method for reform and whether any modifications to the system by elected TDs and Senators could accepted by the public as honest efforts at improvements rather than a cynical exercise in protecting themselves.
Seeing as this was a meeting of the Committee on the Constitution focusing on the electoral system for members to Dáil Éireann, a lot of the issues raised were actually outside the scope. Most items such as gender quotas, ballot paper order and the franchise can all be changed using legislation without recourse to changing the constitution. So what items would I like to see modified in Article 16?
Of course, these changes should only be part of a wider change in the system of politics in the country. We need a stronger separation of legislative and executive. We need more powers and responsibilities devolved to local government. We need to take a long, hard look at the role and composition of the Seanad. We need to have better engagement between politics and the public on matters of policy. We need the system to encourage participation from all walks of life. Will any of this be delivered in the near future? I doubt it but we can all keep chipping away.
There followed a debate chaired by John Bowman with Noel Dempsey, Ivana Bacik, Justice Frank Clarke and Prof Ken Benoit joining Sean Ardagh and Jim O'Keefe on the panel. There were also contributions from the floor by Joanna Tuffy, Gemma Hussey, Prof David Farrell and many members of the public. A lot of the discussion centred around women's participation in politics and whether there should be gender quotas built into the system. Other topics covered included the method for reform and whether any modifications to the system by elected TDs and Senators could accepted by the public as honest efforts at improvements rather than a cynical exercise in protecting themselves.
Seeing as this was a meeting of the Committee on the Constitution focusing on the electoral system for members to Dáil Éireann, a lot of the issues raised were actually outside the scope. Most items such as gender quotas, ballot paper order and the franchise can all be changed using legislation without recourse to changing the constitution. So what items would I like to see modified in Article 16?
- 16.1.1 - Why do you need to be 21 to be a member of the Dáil?
- 16.1.2 - Reduce the voting age to 16. I have rolled back from my more extreme point of 15 (12 for locals)
- 16.1.5/6 - Introduce a list system to avoid elections being popularity contests. This system should retain multi-seat constituencies and PR-STV for about 100 members and then elect about 60 from the list.
- Add a subsection to 16.1.1 introducing time limits for membership of the Dáil, maybe 3 sessions or 12 years, which ever is longer
- 16.1.7 - Add a time limit for seats being kept vacant. 3 months should be sufficient.
Of course, these changes should only be part of a wider change in the system of politics in the country. We need a stronger separation of legislative and executive. We need more powers and responsibilities devolved to local government. We need to take a long, hard look at the role and composition of the Seanad. We need to have better engagement between politics and the public on matters of policy. We need the system to encourage participation from all walks of life. Will any of this be delivered in the near future? I doubt it but we can all keep chipping away.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Constitution Week?
This evening the Exam Hall in TCD hosts a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution followed by a Q&A session chaired by John Bowman. Seems like it is the place to be as almost all of the 330 available tickets have been snapped up. The official business will consist of formal submissions by various politics students to the Committee on the topic of electoral reform. It will be interesting to see if they start advocating assorted list systems or just tinkering with the existing multi-seat setup.
The Q&A session is where the real sparks will fly (hopefully!) as the general public will be allowed contribute to the debate. I'm expecting all sorts of weird and wacky proposals and comments from the usual lunatic fringe. The reform seminar that was held last June had an interesting set of contributors from academia, the media, politics and the hoi-poloi. If the quality of discussion is anywhere close to that, then we should be in for a treat.
Then on Thursday, Leviathan starts up again with a show on re-writing the Constituion. While this event may be slightly lower brow than tonight's, again it should be an entertaining and informative evening. I guess most of the attendees at this will also have been at the TCD event so hopefully the two events won't end up covering the same ground.
The Q&A session is where the real sparks will fly (hopefully!) as the general public will be allowed contribute to the debate. I'm expecting all sorts of weird and wacky proposals and comments from the usual lunatic fringe. The reform seminar that was held last June had an interesting set of contributors from academia, the media, politics and the hoi-poloi. If the quality of discussion is anywhere close to that, then we should be in for a treat.
Then on Thursday, Leviathan starts up again with a show on re-writing the Constituion. While this event may be slightly lower brow than tonight's, again it should be an entertaining and informative evening. I guess most of the attendees at this will also have been at the TCD event so hopefully the two events won't end up covering the same ground.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Freedom of Speech?
This evening I was reminded about why I'm glad I graduated from student politics when I attended a meeting of the Central Societies Committee in TCD. This body oversees the student societies in College and is one of the five capitated bodies in College. At various points in history I served as Secretary, Chair and Treasurer but I now just attend the thrice yearly general meetings as the representative of the Choral Society.
On the agenda was a motion to mandate the CSC representatives on another committee to vote in a certain way if a motion were proposed on a certain topic. The back story to this is long, complex and I don't really know many of the details and nuances, but the long and short is that the Senior Dean wanted the right to pull student publications if they were likely to get the College in to serious trouble over their content. The members of the Publications Committee were trying to build support for their "freedom of speech" campaign by passing these motions at meetings of the other capitated bodies.
The problem was that it was clear from the outset that the CSC was not in favour of passing the motion. Many people wanted to speak against the motion but only two for which meant that under the rules only two speakers against were allowed. Talk about a restriction of freedom of speech! While in the end the motion was soundly defeated by about 2-1 the proceedings really made a mockery of the system. Surely if a group want a motion passed they should be able to bring along speakers in favour of their position. Why should opponents be silenced to keep up the pretence of a McKenna style, fair and balanced debate?
On the agenda was a motion to mandate the CSC representatives on another committee to vote in a certain way if a motion were proposed on a certain topic. The back story to this is long, complex and I don't really know many of the details and nuances, but the long and short is that the Senior Dean wanted the right to pull student publications if they were likely to get the College in to serious trouble over their content. The members of the Publications Committee were trying to build support for their "freedom of speech" campaign by passing these motions at meetings of the other capitated bodies.
The problem was that it was clear from the outset that the CSC was not in favour of passing the motion. Many people wanted to speak against the motion but only two for which meant that under the rules only two speakers against were allowed. Talk about a restriction of freedom of speech! While in the end the motion was soundly defeated by about 2-1 the proceedings really made a mockery of the system. Surely if a group want a motion passed they should be able to bring along speakers in favour of their position. Why should opponents be silenced to keep up the pretence of a McKenna style, fair and balanced debate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)