I am using my right to reply to address issues raised in RON’s manifesto and in the bubble debate on Sunday.
Firstly, I’ll address every issue raised in the RON manifesto.
RON says I do not detail any specific ideas that will form a part of the new strategic plan, the reason for this is that it would be foolish for me suggest a new idea, given that LSU has hired the research company Red Brick, to conduct and analyse the research and to come up with the proposals themselves. To suggest that I should’ve come up with an idea for what should make a part of the plan is ludicrous, given that the initial findings of the survey were only discussed on Friday 24th, 8 days after the deadlines for nominations when our manifestos had to be done by.
RON proceeds to criticise my intention to investigate the possibility of lending card readers to halls on move in days, saying it’s a “menial part of freshers” and it would be easy to complete. In rebuttal of this, I’d like to know why it was not sorted in any years prior, if it was indeed so menial and easy to do.
RON’s third criticism of my manifesto was to label the fact that I study Maths “irrelevant”. In response I would like to remind people that during the bubble debate last year, candidates for this position were called out for the fact that neither of them studied a degree with any financial basis. I mentioned that I studied a relevant degree to ensure I received no discredit in my bubble debate.
The second part of my right to reply is in response to criticism of my performance in the bubble debate.
Label’s review stated that I was unable to answer my first question. That question was along the lines of “…how could we look at external opportunities to replace the grant from the university?” The University recognise how much we provide to the overall student experience so the grant is used to sustain and improve it. Looking into alternatives is viable but the university are always going to give us a grant of sorts.
Label goes on to criticise my prioritising of the student experience over profit, stating “he seems to be concerned with making the student experience better, which although important to us as students he also needs to be financially viable” In my actual answer I said “financially, the only important thing is that we don’t make a loss”. The writers must not have heard me say this.
Label continue to question whether I know the ins and outs of the role. I assure you, having sat this academic year alone on 6 committees and boards alongside Hersh, particularly the Board of Trustees and the Finance and management subcommittee, I have extensive knowledge of the role and its remit and I am in good stead to be able to start next year at full pace.