Major apologies for the bad writing and potential inaccuracy of my article. I wrote it on my plane to Melbourne, and I'm giving up valuable sleep to post it as a placeholder until I can deliver something more detailed (probably Wednesday or Thursday or so). If you have questions, comments or problems with some of my facts, PLEASE let me know in the comments!
~~~~~
Have you noticed an unusual amount of anger and frustration emanating from student politicians this week just gone? If so, it's probably because the elections for the Student Representative Council, National Union of Students delegates and Student Media – everything except AUU Board – have been cancelled.
Back in the Union’s ancient history, pre-VSU that is, there was the Student Association of Adelaide Uni (the SAUA). They were basically the same body as the SRC is aiming to be when it grows up; although I expect everyone involved is hoping that the SRC will be more functional. The SAUA was where all the technical allowances for elections sat, so when the SAUA was disbanded, all elections other than those for AUU Board became invalid. Last year the people running the AUU were ignorant – wilfully or otherwise – of this, so the elections went ahead. However, this year a complaint was lodged by David Wilkins, ex-President and policy leader for the Pulse (Labor Right) faction.
This complaint revolved around the way that the SRC was brought into being. To create a committee like the SRC, a rule must be passed twice at separate sittings through the AUU Board and then once through University Council. The rule to create the SRC went through Board in September ’07 and April ’08, but it never cleared the final hurdle: University Council. In what Lavinia Emmett-Gray, AUU President, described as ‘a bullying tactic’, UC refused any such rule unless it was accompanied by complete constitutional reform which the Board did not have – or make – time for. This left the election in a tenuous position which was revealed fully when David lodged a complaint about their illegality.
As an attempt to plaster over these problems so that the elections could go ahead almost as planned, Lavinia put forth a piece of policy that would separate the two elections. The idea was to run them with different returning officers and slightly different rules, but still side by side. In response, David lodged another complaint on the basis that only positions specified in the constitution or rules can be elected. The election tribunal ruled in David’s favour. As a result, the SRC, NUS and Student Media positions for the coming year can only be filled by appointment.
In essence, this is an ideological dispute. On one hand, Lavinia and her friends in Labor Left believe that these positions should be elected, even if that requires creative interpretation of the rules. They see election as the only way to fairly fill the positions. Conversely, Pulse believes that the people who fill these roles deserve to be there legitimately, even if that means that they have to be appointed by Board this year.
Of course, there’s also plenty of personal politics that’s had a hand in this situation. I’ll try to explain that well in my more thorough coverage, but you can probably guess most of how it went.
1 comments:
The simple fact of the matter was not about whether you agreed with the creation of the SRC or not, but the election policy which was created to govern the election of those positions.
The election policy put forward by the Left removed any ability to appeal to the election tribunal for misconduct or other election rigging practices, and furthermore could be altered by the executive/board right up to the counting of ballots with a simple majority of one meeting.
It's not a matter of whether the positions should be elected or not, it's the manner in which these elections take place and how to ensure they are in fact free and fair elections. This would not be the case under the policy put forward which conflicted with the AUU's own constitution.