Mohamed Alsaffar | Contributing Writer
Trinity College Students’ Union (TCDSU) took in and spent €1.5 million in 2014. The breakdown of where this comes from and more importantly where it goes can be difficult to decipher. The union has undergone some restructuring in recent years. However, there is still a lack of regulation at the top which, other than highlighting a stark inconsistency in the union’s constitution, may leave the large funds a little too much at the mercy of the integrity of individuals within the organisation. Since the vast bulk of the union’s funds are sourced from the students who it exists to represent there is a demand for greater transparency.
Click to See Full Image
Sources of funding
The SU gets one grant from the university, the capitation grant of around €340,000.The Capitation Committee is responsible for distributing funds of around €1.2 million to Trinity’s five capitated bodies: TCDSU, the Graduate Students’ Union, the Central Societies Committee (CSC) the Central Athletics Committee (DUCAC), and the Publications Committee. This fund was cut by just under 5 per cent for the last academic year and 5 per cent for this year. The fund is said to come directly from the student contribution. However, Domhnall McGlacken-Byrne, the SU President, contests this, stating that the student contribution is collected along with the rest of Trinity’s funds in a central pot the contents of which are then redistributed throughout the college. This would reduce the legitimacy of labelling a fund as being for a specific purpose. For example, the USI levy is €8, with €5 going to the USI and €3 towards costs associated with the USI that are incurred by the SU. This would be fine if the €3 exactly covers the costs it is supposed to but if these costs add up to less than €3 per student then the money left over sits ambiguously in the pot mixed with 268 million other euros ready to be spent in any other college division. To be fair, TCDSU also works like this, with a centrally controlled pot that all money goes into and out of rather than each division having a clearly segmented budget.
The SU get’s almost as much money from it’s businesses. Though some of these have dwindled recently. The SU-owned travelcard business has somewhat of a monopoly on the city centre, charging €12 for a card and €3 for the picture on the card. The travelcard business is the most lucrative venture of the SU making €600,000 last year, €116,000 of which was profit. The union also has shops in House 6 and in the Hamilton Building which collectively brought in €360,000. The House 6 shop, which sells Trinity merchandise, made a profit of €52,000 and the Hamilton shop, which does not sell merchandise, made a loss of €4,000. McGlacken-Byrne said: “the low profits of the shops from selling goods other than clothes is because the aim of the shops is to provide student [with affordable] prices and not to make profit”. As part of the research for this article a small reporter’s notepad was purchased. I can confirm that it was indeed a steal. Profits have been considerably decreasing though, due to what McGlacken-Byrne describes as “mitosis of an external competitor”. The combined profits of the shops decreased by €34,000 from the previous year, a decrease of 42 per cent.
The remainder of the €1.5 million is largely made up by Ents income (€106,000) and the SU café (€73,000), both which make minimal profit or small losses. Smaller entities such as advertising and the new Click laptop repair shop in House 6 make up the rest.
Who has control?
In 2012 it was reported that UCD’s students’ union had accumulated €1.4 million in debt due to some truly awful accounting practices that suggested an incredible lack of foresight and experience. This was epitomised by the student-run UCD bar which ran under the banner of Ents. Despite being the only bar on campus, it managed to accumulate €90,000 of debt and lead to its own closure. It also led to the removal of the post of student Ents officer with professionals taking their place. In any case, the sabbatical officers of a given year will have little or no experience in managing large sums of money. Coupled with the fact that they are effectively relieved of their responsibilities after one year, it would be difficult to justify a completely free reign for the students.
“I would at my peril completely disregard [Evans]”
The money is constitutionally controlled by the two co-treasurers of the SU: McGlacken-Byrne and Simon Evans, an accountant who has been the SU administrative officer for the last twenty years. According to McGlacken-Byrne, Evans produces the budgets and gives his opinion on the feasibility of proposals made by the officers. When asked who has the ultimate power in decision making on expenditure, McGlacken-Byrne replied: “I am the highest authority in the SU and I can overrule Simon [Evans] if he is averse to a proposal”. During this interview the president mentioned a few examples of Evans being overruled. The puppy room that Evans initially had objections to had just taken place and the territory had been marked. Whilst Evans creates the budgets, the sabbatical officers are in fact, within reason, essentially given as much money as they need. It appears that the “reason” is provided by Evans, a man McGlacken-Byrne describes as “the glue which holds the place together and one I would at my peril completely disregard”. I must say that it was quite difficult to pin down the exact level influence of Evans in the SU. When I did manage to speak to him, he stated that he “could refuse to provide money for an event or purchase provided there was a significant reason”. A hypothetical example of this was a refusal to cover an insurance claim on a lost mobile phone in the event that an insurance company would refuse to satisfy the same claim. He could not provide any real examples despite being “quite sure over the years that [he’s] been asked to pay for things and [he] would say that [he] would not pay because of X, Y and Z”. He did add that the sabbatical officers make the final decisions, his role being an advisory one, and that he would “be well able and confident to argue his point” against a proposal by the sabbatical officers that he disagreed with “but equally able and confident to go ahead with it” if they overrule him.
His experience seems to be very much valued within the union and he provides continuity the sabbatical officers cannot. Whilst his importance may often take precedence over the superior power of the president, his importance is also critical to the stability of the union.
Salaries, Ents and rainy days – where does it all go?
Looking at the SU accounts, the biggest expenditure is on the travel card business – almost half a million. This along with the income that this business makes, highlights a significant reliance on travelcard revenue. One which had to further increase from the previous year to compensate the cuts to the capitation fund.
Almost 20 per cent of the total budget of the SU goes to salaries. They are divided into sabbatical officer salaries and staff salaries, the latter of which incorporates the salaries of the staff in the front office of House 6. In 2014 the SU officers’ salaries totalled €92,400 and staff salaries totalled €188,300. While the Trinity sabbatical officers are often touted as having low salaries compared to other universities, the total money spent on each officer by the SU is around €30,000 as the officers enjoy free accommodation and phones amongst other compliments. €30,000 is much closer to the salaries of the SU officers in the other Irish universities who do not have the same benefits. The Union refused to provide the University Times with an actual breakdown of staff salaries as they said salaries are “a matter between staff and employer” but it includes Evans’ amongst other full and part time staff.
“The Union refused to provide the University Times with an actual breakdown of staff salaries”
Ents, especially with its Trinity Ball, seems like it could be a potential money spinner for the union. In actual fact it aims to break even as it runs under the philosophy of a student service rather than a commercial one. The financial model of Ents is quite unique in the SU in that it is not provided with a budget from the SU funds. It initially has no money and has to generate its own operating profits to sustain it throughout the year. Ents makes a significant amount selling wristbands in Freshers’ Week for nights out. If the wristband sales are particularly unsuccessful or if an event makes a significant loss then the Ents budget curtails, explaining any decline in quality of events as the year develops.
Regarding Ents, MaGlacken-Byrne stated: “In years gone by there were rumours questioning the integrity of Ents officers with regards to money made at events because they dealt with such large sums”. Whether or not these rumours had any basis, the level of financial scrutiny today with regards to Ents events is higher than before. For example, on the door reports outlining attendances at events such as club nights are much more rigorous today than they were a number of years ago due to health and safety reasons. These reports are taken along with other receipts and compared with the Ents officer’s report by Evans. The money made is then promptly lodged in the SU account. Finn Murphy, the current Ents officer, aims to further increase transparency with the introduction of electronic payment systems later this year.
Trinity’s class reps are trained for €16,000 and eight times a year they are invited to vote on policies, elect committees and hear the sabbatical officers’ work reports at the SU council meetings. These cost a lot, €1000 a pop last year, most of which is spent on printing agendas for the reps. Drinks tokens and food are also included in the cost and last year two sign language interpreters were also hired. McGlacken-Byrne contests the startling costs, arguing that the class reps are unpaid, and the hours they put in for their duties, as compared to the hourly salaries of the sabbatical officers, more than make up for the cost of training and council. He also adds that the cost of meetings should be less this year because they do not need to hire interpreters and they will source their food from the Pav rather than external bars.
Other expenses include the expenses of the shops and café, printing the University Times, welfare expenses and elections. Notably, up to €10,000 is lost each year to students not returning the €100 welfare loan handed out by the welfare officer. Elections and referenda cost €19,000 last year, almost double the previous year, in part due to a record number of seven referenda. Freshers’ Week is another expense, comprised mainly of €6000 worth of free food vouchers for the SU café.
As a reserve, the union has €407,000 in the bank which McGlacken-Byrne stated it “could dip into on rainy days”. The money is largely made up of profits made by the House 6 and Hamilton shops over the last few years. It went down €100,000 last year because the Union lost this much investing in renovations to House 6 and establishing Click. McGlacken-Byrne also mentions some potential future investments including the “possibility of opening a new student centre or shop in the new Oisín House” and “paying consultancy fees when setting up [his planned] strategic plan”. These are however just early ideas and in particular he states that he will look into cheaper alternatives to consultants. However, as the capitation fund is cut, and the profits of the shops shrink, and the union becomes ever more reliant on selling travelcards, further investments may leave the union’s residual firepower increasingly more vulnerable to a light drizzle.
Lack of regulation?
As the budgeter of the SU, Evans commands the movement of money in many directions including the payment of his own salary. McGlacken-Byrne technically does the same and states that “the heads of companies control money and pay their own salaries but there is a board of trustees which has the power to step in if they are taking the piss. The idea that any company would not have a board is insane”. The SU board of trustees is clearly outlined in article 4.10 of its constitution. The problem is, as mentioned by the President, it does not have one. A board should be there to provide an objective analysis of the Union and to provide the president with advice on matters regarding it. This may decrease the autonomy of the president but it would, McGlacken-Byrne said, “provide expertise as well as accountability” and thus increase the structural rigidity of the union.
Historically, the union has experienced fluctuating financial fortunes. In the early 2000s, the SU was making losses year on year. It had hired more full-time staff and was running unsustainable activities that included the travel agency DUST, which was initially successful but was later out-competed by professional travel agencies. As part of the 2006 restructuring of the SU under the then-President, John Mannion, redundancies were made, DUST was shut down and a low six-figure loan was taken out to cover the losses.
In 2013 the then-President, Rory Dunne, invited a review panel of educational dignitaries from both Ireland and the UK to perform an external review of the union. The panel identified the need for a strategic plan in outlining the direction of the SU. They also identified the need for a board of trustees consisting of students and professionals in developing the plan and in providing a long-term continuity that the sabbatical officers cannot. Other aspects of the review which stand out include a concern about “a lack of routine financial reporting” described as “unusual for an organisation of the size and turnover of TCDSU”. McGlacken-Byrne and Evans do however state that it does occur, but in a less formal manner. The panel also mentions that there is no evidence of risk management or financial scrutiny and that there should be a management structure that includes “performance indicators, a job description, appraisal and general oversight of the work of the Administrative Officer (Evans)” which could be carried out by a board. Renaming the role of Evans from Administrative Officer to Strategic Development Officer or Chief Executive is another suggestion of the panel and both McGlacken-Byrne and Evans agreed that this would better reflect his actual role in the union.
Currently the students’ trust in the integrity of the SU may lie a little too much in the integrity of the President and Administrative Officer. However, McGlacken-Byrne does have the aim of of establishing a board and of course producing a strategic plan. While the whole process may take some time, it is certainly a step towards making the SU more transparent and consistent in years to come.
Illustrations by Eoghan Hynes
