An attempt by Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union to contest the passing of the new student charges has failed after the Visitors rejected the claim that there was no consensus on the issue at the College Board meeting in which they were approved.
In May 2015, the then-President of TCDSU, Domhnall McGlacken-Byrne, formally submitted an appeal to the university’s two Visitors, stating that there was a “legally disputable level of consensus” at the meeting. The appeal, a copy of which was seen by The University Times, points to the lack of a vote called regarding the student charges decision. The Visitors found, however, that there was “no convincing evidence” that there was no consensus at the meeting.
The College Board passed the proposal to introduce a range of student charges on March 25th, 2015. Their introduction was delayed by almost a year after campaigns lead by TCDSU. In a referendum on the issue, which took place in February 2015 alongside the sabbatical officer elections, 80 per cent of students voted for the union to oppose the introduction of the charges.
McGlacken-Byrne’s claim rested on the fact that a vote was not called on the issue. He called on a section of the Universities Act 1997, which prescribes for the behaviour of university governing authorities. This section stipulates that if no consensus can be reached by the governing authority of the university, a vote must be taken on the issue in question. McGlacken-Byrne argued that, given it was clear that no consensus existed, the Chair of the Board, Provost Patrick Prendergast, was mandated to call a vote on the proposed student charges.
He did not do so.
According to the minutes of the Board meeting in question, a query was made “regarding consensus”. The Provost, the minutes state, “commented that the majority of the Board agreed with the compromise proposals”. At the Board meeting of April 29th, by which time McGlacken-Byrne had told the College Registrar, Prof Shane Allwright, that he intended to make an appeal, the issue of consensus was raised. The minutes of the meeting state that the “distinction between recording a dissent and voicing an opinion was noted”, and that “there had been consensus on the decision to approve the revised proposals”. It was also noted that “a vote of the Board had not been requested” regarding the student charges.
In the appeal, McGlacken-Byrne argues that where “consensus has not been reached”, the responsibility to call a vote is “explicitly bestowed on the Provost and not on Board members present”.
Speaking to The University Times last night, McGlacken-Byrne stated that he was not surprised at the outcome of the appeal “within the confines of the current system”, in which “the Board never really takes a vote”. He stated that and that “there definitely was not consensus”, and that “the real problem is the systematic governance issue”.
The 12-page appeal itself asserted that the discussion on student charges at Board was handled unprofessionally, without due respect for student representatives, in a way that dismissed criticism. It argued that this attitude towards TCDSU officers “threatens to suppress the ‘independence of thought’ celebrated by Trinity College’s mission statement”. The submission also raised objections about how the student charges were discussed prior to the Board meeting. For example, McGlacken-Byrne stated that he was refused permission to invite the Senior Tutor to discussions even though they were within her remit.
The charges have been in effect since last year, and include an increase in the cost of replacing a student card from €6 to €20 and an increase in the postgraduate application fee from €35 to €55.
Minutes of the College Finance Committee on May 8th note that “no further action” was to be taken in relation to the student charges “until the appeal process [was] concluded”. The charges, however, were implemented before the process was completed.
The set of charges originally included a €250 fee for supplemental exams. However, after opposition from students and TCDSU, including an email campaign to Board members, a compromise was reached and this charge was scrapped.
The Visitors, one of whom is always the Chancellor of the University, hear appeals made against decisions of College bodies, including the College Board. The other Visitor, the Judicial Visitor, is typically an individual with considerable legal experience. Currently, the Chancellor is former Irish President Mary Robinson, while former High Court judge Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark is the Judicial Visitor. The Judicial Visitor is appointed by the government.
McGlacken-Byrne was made aware of the decision in November. The University Times reported in September 2014 that the appeal had not received a reply, and McGlacken-Byrne expressed disappointment at how long it was taking, despite the best efforts of TCDSU officers to educate themselves in the “structure and decision-making processes of Trinity”, and engaging with the “official appeals process”, these efforts seem to be unappreciated by College.
McGlacken-Byrne also added that it was “imperative to have an expedient appeals process that is capable of dealing with contested issues in a contemporaneous manner. Those who disagree with decisions in Trinity are often told they are free to appeal this decision if they wish; however, this experience of attempting to do so would not particularly encourage one to do so again”.
However, speaking to The University Times at the time, Prof Eoin O’Dell, an Associate Professor in Trinity’s Law School and then-Chair of the Fellows, stated that “it is not unusual for appeals to take a long time”. He added: “The time limits in the statutes apply during term, but not during the summer, and very often in complicated cases the Visitors seek more information from one or other of the parties, usually the College.”
O’Dell chaired the four-year period of revision of the College statutes by the Statutes Review Working Party.
Correction: March 6th, 2016
An earlier version of this article said that the decision of the Visitors came almost a full year since the appeal had been submitted. In fact, the decision was made in November and McGlacken-Byrne was made aware of the result in November. The result of the appeal was only made publicly available in the past week, however.
Edmund Heaphy and Dominic McGrath contributed reporting to this piece.
