Electoral Reforms and the NWC

Filed under: , , , by: Hannah

NB: I've left this article as was for it's publication in On Dit. This means that most of it is extremely confusing. Just accept that fairly much everything mentioned here has changed since and read it for fun and nostalgia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As is common for election time, the Board is realising that they have run out of time for the electoral reforms that were so passionately talked up at the start of the year. One Board member has informed us that a lack of follow-through has left the Board in a position where it will not be possible to get the most important of the constitutional reform in place before the elections in the first week of September. Having to get constitutional amendments passed by the University Council only compounds the problem, as Council is inclined to pass nothing less than a comprehensive re-writing of the Constitution. The changes that have been successfully made are primarily minor changes to the wording to eliminate references to compulsory student unionism and the Board’s former commercial holdings. The Board’s constitutional committee hasn’t met this year, and the reform that has made it to Board at all appears to have come from conversation between Lavinia and the General Manager, David Coluccio with reference to reform proposals by Matthew Taylor, who was the Vice President of the Board last year.

It appears that the Board is “stuck in a cycle” in which they will begin their term with all sorts of good intentions to reform the way that the Board is run and see to more reasonable election rules for the year after. Inevitably, these reforms will be blocked or just not happen due to general disorganisation or higher priorities, which holds up the subsequent Board and starts the cycle again. It could be a fondly regarded tradition if the consequences weren’t so serious.

One example of the consequences is the outcome of the AUU’s negotiations with the Australian Electoral Commission, which was approached to run the student elections in the first week of September this year. The AEC reviewed the rules for student elections and found that they did not meet certain minimum standards. Because the Board has to have changes passed by University Council they were unable to deliver any rule changes until the Council meets, one week after the elections. The AEC sought legal advice on this, and were advised not to oversee Adelaide University’s student elections until these minimum standards were met. At this point, the only option was for someone from the university to assume the mantle of Returning Officer. This forces a political position upon a member of the university community, undermines the level of professionalism and introduces an unwelcome level of partisanship.

In other news, AUU Watch reported earlier this year that the National Wine Centre (NWC) was being taken to task by the Board over a number of issues. Since then the University is rumoured to have met with the NWC to express its displeasure over similar matters. The NWC made some noises at these complaints and students were told that the matters would be fixed in due course. Several months later and still nothing has been done. As a result, the Board asked the NWC to send a representative to the Board meeting on August 7th to answer the Union’s ‘please explain’. Hopefully by the time you read this column the NWC will have considered the complaints they receive at the meeting and will be on their way to working with students, rather than frustrating them.

1 comments:

On 16 January 2010 at 21:36 , Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it.
................................
writing a term paper-Term Paper Sample