It’s fair to say, all things considered, that Brian Ó Ruairc is perhaps not the most popular figure among the member clubs of Dublin University Central Athletic Club (DUCAC). As Senior Honorary Treasurer of a body with responsibility for the funding of Trinity’s 50 sports clubs, it’s probably an understatement to suggest that Ó Ruairc had a tricky job for the three years he spent in the role. Ousted from his position at this year’s AGM by John Bolton of Dublin University Boat Club (DUBC), Ó Ruairc did not attend the AGM, but his election speech, delivered by DUCAC Pavilion Member PJ McGrane and seen by The University Times, was loaded with significance.
In his speech, Ó Ruairc, who last year performed his DUCAC duties from his base in Galway, went so far as to suggest that “most people in the room don’t like me”, and added: “I am well aware that most of you have already been told what way to vote.” These were telling comments, making acutely obvious to all present at the AGM the contradiction at the heart of DUCAC’s supposedly democratic electoral structures.
It is, then, with some excitement that I pick up the phone to call Ó Ruairc for our interview. Having played a key role in DUCAC’s administration for several years now, after originally getting involved through Trinity GAA as an undergraduate, it’s no exaggeration to say that Ó Ruairc knows the body inside out. What does he make of DUCAC’s electoral procedures, and the culture at its AGMs? He begins: “I suppose the culture is there are certain clubs who treat it as their first social outing … it is still a social gathering for certain clubs, and then those clubs are told before they even walk in the door who to vote for.” The AGM, he points out, often clashes with training sessions for certain clubs, robbing them of the opportunity to vote in the elections of DUCAC’s Executive Committee. “I don’t know this year, but last year I can name six clubs off the top of my head that actually had training the day of the AGM. So their members actually can’t even go to it, so that in and of itself is a little bit of a an unfair bias.”
I wonder about the rumours that members of Dublin University Boat Club (DUBC) exert undue influence over DUCAC. Would, for example, the AGM ever be scheduled at a time that would clash with a training session for DUBC? “It is unlikely”, he responds definitively, “that the boat club will ever be training on a Thursday evening in the middle of October”.
Whether it’s the GAA, FIFA, UEFA, whatever it is, they all have what is essentially a one club, one vote [system]
I am fascinated by the dynamics of the committee, and how much the supposed power of the boat club colours the interactions of DUCAC’s members. Ó Ruairc, reticent when I push him for specifics about DUBC’s sway, is diplomatic: “Yes, I suppose there is a divide within the executive, to a degree in that you have certain people that want to bring the whole thing forward, bring all the clubs forward and to take a bigger picture kind of view of things. And then obviously, not just necessarily from the clubs you mentioned, but other people that are more kind of one-club orientated [in their] views … that make things a little bit more challenging.” Certain clubs, he says, “don’t want things to change, because it’s to their benefit for it not to change, so why would they change it? It’s to their interest to keep it slow and to stop things from happening quickly”.
Any clubs in particular? The silence is deafening: “I’m not going to answer that.”
We move onto the proposal, mooted at the AGM by the captain of Dublin University Archery Club (DUAC), Diego Coyle Diez, to introduce a “one club, one vote” system for the election of DUCAC’s officers. Ó Ruairc is a firm proponent of the idea: “To be honest, I don’t understand why it’s not already in place. Whether it’s the GAA, FIFA, UEFA, whatever it is, they all have what is essentially a one club, one vote [system].” Ó Ruairc says this voting method is “the only really fair way of doing it, to make sure that there’s a balance between everyone, is to have a one club, one vote system. And I don’t understand how we don’t have that in DUCAC seeing as we oversee 50 sports clubs. Like, we’re not one club, we are 50 clubs, so…”
There’s no mention of that in the constitution – and Donagh should know, he wrote the constitution
And what of the proposal’s out-of-hand rejection by DUCAC Chair Donagh McDonagh (a former captain of DUBC), who said that such a change to DUCAC’s constitution would require “the whole student body” to vote for it? (DUCAC’s constitution does not specify the need for a student-wide referendum when amending the constitution.)
Here Ó Ruairc is as unequivocal as he gets when McDonagh’s name comes up: “First of all, you are correct, I don’t think it has to go to a whole student vote. There’s no mention of that in the constitution – and Donagh should know, he wrote the constitution. So I don’t know where that came from. I also believe that he was wrong to dismiss it. He should have been more engaging with the student who was bringing something like that up.”
If, through a combination of Ó Ruairc’s answers and the questions he refuses categorically to be drawn on, a picture is starting to emerge, then it’s not one he’s willing to fill in the gaps on. He mentions several DUCAC officers with whom he enjoyed positive relationships: Administrator Aidan Kavanagh and former Chair Prof Cyril J Smyth stand out. What about McDonagh? Again the silence. “I’m not answering that.”
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of DUCAC’s work is its allocation of budgets to Trinity’s clubs, a process in which Ó Ruairc has played a central role in the last few years. It’s perhaps surprising, then, that it’s when we get onto this issue that Ó Ruairc becomes most buoyant. Under his stewardship, DUCAC introduced a new budgeting system, which he is keen to explain. “The way the budgets were previously allocated”, he says, “was on a 140 per cent allocation, so clubs were expected not to claim the full amount. So then we moved that to a 100 per cent allocation because unfortunately some clubs were finding ways to claim above and beyond 100 per cent”. He also introduced an office budgeting system to cut costs, making it very difficult to overspend. After taking a major hit to its coffers courtesy of the redevelopment of Santry Avenue, trimming the budgets was of paramount importance to DUCAC. Since the redevelopment DUCAC has been able to decrease the deficit by nearly €70,000, a feat of Ó Ruairc is clearly proud.
However, several clubs have complained to The University Times this year about crippling budget cuts. What does Ó Ruairc say to the members of those clubs? He seems confused: “It’s just to bring our finances in line as best we could … I don’t really know which clubs you have been talking to, there were none that were cut more than others, if you know what I mean. There were no one or two clubs that were cut substantially, it was a fairly uniform kind of cut.”
Since the redevelopment of Santry DUCAC has been able to decrease the deficit by nearly €70,000, a feat of Ó Ruairc is clearly proud
Perhaps Ó Ruairc’s most dramatic – not to mention surprising – idea is a student-led DUCAC Executive Committee. At the moment, the top job in DUCAC is occupied by a non-student: McDonagh began his chairship in 2016/17 after seeing off PJ McGrane, who was at the time bidding to become the first student Chair of DUCAC. McGrane argued for swapping control of DUCAC over to students, a measure Ó Ruairc supported.
“Being a student now”, he says, “is very different to being a student 30 or 40 years ago. Times change and [clubs’] needs change. I’m just in favour of, you know, students money through capitation, students pay that to the College, which then finds its way to us. Therefore, having a student voice is more appropriate than having the voice of someone who is 30 or 40 years finished College.”
When I ask him if this change will occur, he is pessimistic. I wonder if it would have had a better chance had McGrane been elected. “Yes … yes. I think that if PJ had been elected two years ago certain things, certain changes, would have been more easily received.”
Towards the end of our interview, I ask why he ran for re-election, given the defeatist tone of his speech. “I suppose”, he says, “a lot of time and effort has gone into the last three years. I put a lot into it and I didn’t want to see a lot of the progress we’d made being reneged on. I wanted to see progress continue and not slow down”.
