MISU Referendum 2026

The current system is not working as intended. Union Council rarely reaches quorum, most class rep positions are unfilled, and officers are overloaded with meetings and admin rather than visible representation. Students have told us they experience the system as slow, formal and inaccessible, and they often solve issues informally or not at all. The new ecosystem is designed to be lower‑barrier, more responsive, and better aligned to the realities of Mary I students.

Advocacy Roles are designed as pure advocacy positions:

• Focused on representing students in institutional decision‑making spaces (e.g. academic council, quality committees, senior fora).
• Not responsible for day‑to‑day operations, event logistics or systems administration.
• Expected to be visible and accessible on campus – scheduled time each week for being “out, not in office” talking with students.
• Advocacy Roles are elected and must remain visibly accountable to the student body. Their role descriptions will explicitly include visibility and student contact, not just meetings.

A key part of the redesign is reducing their committee load and operational tasks so they can actually do visibility and advocacy well, rather than juggling too many “hats”.

Community Organisers (COs) are the “engine room” of student engagement:

• Spend most of their time in student spaces (canteens, library, corridors, society events) having 1‑to‑1 conversations.
• Identify patterns in what students are saying – emerging issues, frustrations, opportunities.
• Support students to form Action Squads around specific issues (e.g. housing, timetabling, wellbeing) and help them plan campaigns.
• Monitor online petitions and ideas platform, assess issues, and ensure students receive timely responses.
• Work closely with Advocacy Officers and Learning Reps so that student‑generated issues are fed into the right committees and decision‑makers.

They do not replace elected officers – they make it possible for the democratic system to function in a time‑poor, commuter‑heavy environment. Their job is to build relationships, surface issues and support campaigns; they do not “speak for” students in formal institutional spaces.

The current proposal assumes SCOs will be paid student staff (e.g. part‑time roles held alongside study), line‑managed by MISU staff. This balances:

• Peer credibility and lived experience (they’re in the same world as the students they speak to).
• Professional support and continuity from staff (training, supervision, safeguarding).

Click here for details on working hours, rate of pay and recruitment processes.

Class Reps

The proposal shifts from a large, often vacant class rep system to a smaller but more reliable Learning Rep model:

• Learning Reps are selected (via recruitment, not mass elections) for commitment and understanding of their programme area.
• They sit on key academic committees (e.g. faculty boards, teaching & learning) and are responsible for gathering structured feedback from their cohorts.
• They receive an honorarium to recognise their time and responsibility.

This is designed to fix chronic vacancy and engagement problems while ensuring academic representation is high‑quality and continuous.

Union Council and AGM

• Union Council in its current form (large, quorum-dependent, low-engagement) will be significantly reduced or replaced by:
• Sortition panels (DPC, SCC) for decisions and accountability.
• Union Council in its current form (large, quorum‑dependent, low‑engagement) will be significantly reduced or replaced by:
• Sortition panels (DPC, SCC) for decisions and accountability.
• Action Squads and Energy Petitions for issue‑surfacing and campaigns.

The AGM / General Meetings may remain for core legal functions (accounts, trustees’ report, certain constitutional points), but the expectation is that most meaningful democratic work happens elsewhere in the new system. Exact constitutional changes can be viewed here in the proposed new Constitution.

Students don’t need a title to participate. They can:

• Submit issues and ideas through Ideas Board (digital, always-on).
• Speak directly to Student Community Organisers when they’re on campus.
• Join Action Squads on specific topics (e.g. housing, timetabling, placements).
• Take part in co-creation workshops and listening sessions that MISU will run each term.
• Be randomly selected to sit on sortition panels (see below).

The system is designed so that representation is not limited to people willing or able to hold formal roles.

Action Squads are short-term, issue-specific groups of students supported by Student Community Organisers. They:

• Form around a concrete problem (e.g. WiFi outages, Friday 5pm lectures, accommodation issues).
• Meet informally (on campus or online) for a limited period (e.g. 4–8 weeks).
• Gather evidence, agree demands, and plan realistic actions.
• Work with Advocacy Roles / Learning Reps to get the issue onto the right agenda.

They are designed for students who care about a particular issue, but can’t commit to year-long roles or regular formal meetings.

The intention is that Thurles is designed in from the start, not bolted on:

• One Advocacy Role may be explicitly Thurles-focused (or there may be a campus-based split).
• A Learning Rep will represent Thurles on relevant academic bodies.
• At least one Student Community Organiser will have a clear Thurles remit.
• Sortition panels will be balanced so Thurles students are represented.

Details will be shaped in consultation with Thurles students, but the principle is: no more “poor relation” feeling – Thurles must see itself in the structure.

A key design principle is clear feedback loops:

• Ideas and Petitions Board will show public status updates for issues.
• MISU will publish regular “What We’ve Done This Month” updates – issues raised, campaigns run, wins and honest “we tried but couldn’t” explanations.
• Sortition panel recommendations and responses will be shared.
• Learning Reps and Advocacy Roles will provide brief termly updates.

The aim is that students can see a clear line from what they say to what MISU does. Adjustments can be made through the following:

• Regular review through the Student Confidence Conference.
• Opportunities each year to adjust role descriptions, processes, and resource allocation.
• Ongoing co‑creation and listening sessions with students and staff.

The goal isn’t to launch a perfect system, but to launch a much better system with the capacity to improve itself.

This FAQ will be updated as the model is refined and as more decisions are taken.