Adelaide Student Politics

Forgive this mammoth of a post. I figured the issue deserved as little paraphrasing as possible. Or maybe I'm just a horrible reporter.

The much-anticipated December Union Board meeting was one of the most attended since the election of office bearers. Yasmin Freschi (Independent/Clubbers)was absent (overseas), as were Rhiannon Newman (Activate, at a family function) and Daniel Bills (Pulse) (interstate). Fei Tang (Passion) did not make an appearance (reason unknown). Apart from that, though, everyone was there for most of the meeting, including (surprise surprise) Sonja Jankovic (Liberals), Jianbin ‘Strong’ Jiang (Passion), and Ye Yang (Passion). The reason for the spike in attendance was clear: those concerned at the manner at which both the NUS delegates had been appointed, and at the actions taken at the subsequent Executive meeting, were mounting a challenge, which the (overwhelmingly) Labor delegates were preparing to fight.

Some questions were asked at the beginning of the meeting. Ash Brook (Independent/IndyGo) asked if Board members can attend Executive meetings. AUU Board President Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Independent/IndyGo) said that to the best of her understanding it is a close committee of Board, and thus no (There is nothing stating as such in the Rule on Committees, but it could be stated somewhere else). Soon after, by mutual agreement (helped along by procedural insistence by the Chair. i.e. Lavinia), all the interesting stuff was left to ‘Any Other Business’ at the end of the meeting, and thus Board breezed it’s way through its written concerns. Lavinia’s report was in the Board pack. She spoke briefly about it. Vice President John Bowers (Liberals) then presented a verbal report. It was extremely polite, and said absolutely nothing. From my recollection, he apologized that he had been extremely busy with his army commitments, meaning he did not have time to prepare a written report, before wishing everyone a Merry Christmas. How sweet of him.

The Board then moved onto the issue of the Oversea’s Student Association (OSA), which has been acting up again (not submitting reports, President Dilan Moragolle “not doing anything” etc). Several board members raised the question of whether it was effective to take any stronger action against the OSA, especially given that it had already been put on notice. Lavinia responded by pointing out that they had been put on notice for failing to submit two of their monthly reports, and, after being put on notice, had submitted them, and thus they had been taken off notice. Therefore, it was fine to put them on notice again, before considering stronger action (such as dis-affiliation). Strong (Passion) asked a question, and then made a comment. I didn’t quite catch it, but the mere fact that he spoke deserves a blog post all on its own. Board eventually decided to ‘express its displeasure’ in the minutes, as well as putting the OSA on notice. Again. That’ll teach them.

Board then decided to take steps to increase its involvement in the Waite and Roseworthy campuses. Andrew Anson (Pulse) somewhat pointedly remarks that ‘this is a good chance for Board directors to realize that this university doesn’t stop at North Terrace’. I have no idea what the attitude was about. Paris Dean (Activate) asks what benefits those at the other campuses have to gain from AUU Membership. Lavinia and Andrew respond by pointing to the Ambassadors card. A motion is passed for Lavinia and Andrew to address students at these campuses (the Roseworthy Proposal). The colonization begins.

AUU General Manager David Coluccio then asked that he be given permission to take up to $100,000 out of this years budget in order to fund various renovation and maintenance issues. He thinks this should be done now, while there is a surplus. Paris asked why there is a the problem with doing it out of next years reserves, as opposed to this year’s surplus. It’s a moot point, and Board approved the motion. There was some discussion on the air-conditioning, which Board has to fund. Apparently, one of the reasons Board sold commercial operations was that it would make the university responsible for structural maintenance. Given that the air-conditioners were installed by the Union, and not part of the original structure, they do not fall under the university's jurisdiction. Aaron Fromm (Independent/Clubbers) wanted the air-conditioners to be at least a 4-star energy rating in terms of energy efficiency. Those who considered him a Liberal were momentarily shocked, but recovered their composure as they realized he just wanted to save a buck.

Board was informed that the price of lockers is to double next year, to $20 for AUU members, $30 for non-members. The number of lockers is also set to increase, with repairs taking place on those which need it. Lavinia cut off various Board members who spoke out of turn on the speaking list. The look on the face of one of them in particular was priceless.

Andres Osvaldo Munoz-Lamilla (Sports Association President) turned up at 6:15 pm. That brought up to three the number of affiliate heads who attended the Board meeting (the other two being the Clubs Association VP Justin Kentish, and SRC President Paris Dean). Andres started gossiping and making faces at the back of the room. Lavinia threatened to kick him out. I think he left at this point.

Any Other Business. This was fun.

For those who haven’t read the last few entries (which I encourage you to do, trust me, they’re juicy), this is what happened so far:
Adelaide University each year sends six delegates to the National Union of Students (NUS, they'll be here when they decide getting their website up is a good idea). Elections for the NUS delegates were cancelled in August, due to procedural irregularities. By all appearances, this was the result of incompetence and dodgy legal advice rather than an intended outcome on the part of Lavinia and her Activate allies. So far, bad, but understandable. Next, at the last Board meeting, Lavinia claimed that NUS wanted a list of the delegates being sent. This was before NUS even informed the AUU of what the affiliation fee was. Lavinia then presented a list of six delegates, two of which had not even been NUS nominees when the elections were expected to go forward. Four of the people who voted in favour of this list were on it. This vote was sprung on many of those not in Pulse and Activate (the two factions whose candidates made up five out of six of the NUS positions), who were not aware it was to take place in the closing minutes of the Board meeting. This was especially brutal given that Lavinia had assured Board she would keep them informed of what was going in with NUS delegates at October meeting. Board had been assured during the November meeting by Paris that a vote on the delegates was not a vote on affiliation, giving the impression to some that there would be a vote on affiliation at some future date. And so there was, but not at Board. At the last Executive meeting, on the 28th of November, Executive approved the NUS affiliation fee, of $3300. This was in breach of the rule on Executive spending, which places a $2000 cap. As such, opposition to the way affairs have been conducted thus far was multi-faceted, and involved several issues, a fact which greatly complicated what is to follow.

Jake Wishart (Independent/IndyGo, member of the Greens), along with Aaron, put forward a motion that Executive minutes must be approved at the next meeting of Board. Lavinia suggested an amendment that In-Camera minutes be provided only by request. Apart from that, Lavinia also argued that this was already policy. Jake asked why it hadn’t happened then. Lavinia responded by saying there wasn’t enough time (note: The Board packs were sent out six days after the meeting, and I am told the deadline was only one or two days after the Exec meeting). Eventually the proposal is passed, with a slight amendment to the wording: Executive minutes shall be approved at or before the next Board meeting.

Next, there was a motion to allow Board members to be non-participatory observers at future Executive meetings. This proposal was extended to the next board meeting pending constitutionality. Lavinia expressed her displeasure at the fact that these motions had not been placed within existing policy, and had been so amateurishly formed.

Next, Jake puts forward a motion relating to conflicts of interest. The motion states that Board members must declare conflicts of interest, and not speak or vote on the issue, as is ‘industry best practice’. Lavinia again encourages Jake to place the motion within existing policy. Jake apologizes, but decides to press on with the motion anyway. It is carried.

While the first three motions were aimed at ensuring that such a debacle never occurs again, the next few deal more explicitly with the past.

The Executives approval of NUS funding then came up. There are questions, raised by Ash, as to whether Executives decision is not already void, given that they overstepped their bounds. This isn’t really answered. Lavinia says she was not aware of the cap being at $2000, having believed it to be a $5000 dollar cap. Both she, and AUU General Manager David Coluccio, apologized for their mistake (Note: Coluccio, according to a strict reading of the rule, has to approve all Executive spending, deeming it ‘necessary to the normal operation of the AUU’. He was absent from said Executive meeting).

Paris then claims that the issues are being bundled. He argues that Board is not in a position where it can refuse to fund NUS affiliation, as some of the delegates are already there, and have already paid out of their own pocket expecting to be reimbursed. As such, he claims they may sue for being misled by Board. Furthermore, he says that this would lead to a situation in which students cannot trust their own union to follow through with what it says it will.

Later, when Paris is out of the room, Mark Joyce (Independent/Clubbers/Liberal) answers his concerns by saying that he had warned the delegates that their funding to NUS was not a sure thing, and that they should be aware of the risk they are taking. Essentially, he said that a mistake by Executive does not justify a miscarriage of justice borne by students who do not have democratic representation (in a lot more words, and nowhere near as clearly). Lavinia questions his assertion to having ‘warned’ the delegates, saying he had never approached her. To be honest, I can’t see how any delegate would have taken Mark’s warning seriously, given that the President of the Board had assured them that their expenses would be paid. He maybe had more ground to stand on with the second point, but he didn’t elaborate on it. This is by far the most aggressive Mark has yet been at any meeting. He claimed Lavinia’s ‘time factor’ excuse is ridiculous, as she had time to ‘stitch up a deal’. Lavinia says there was no ‘deal’. Yea …
I’ll let you be the judge of that.

As the first point, as to whether Executives decision was void, was not followed up upon, Board then passed a motion to void the decision of the Executive. It is passed, with Lavinia, Andrew and Fletcher O’Leary (Activate, NUS Delegate) having their abstentions noted (in accordance with the Conflict of Interest motion passed earlier in the meeting).

After much discussion, the majority consensus seems to be that Board must affiliate to NUS, there being no other ethical option open to it. The challenge mounted by Jake Wishart, Aaron Fromm and the Liberals (Mark Joyce, VP John Bowers) dissolved when Jake said he believed the union should affiliate. The motion to affiliate was passed. Mark and John had their dissent noted.

You’d think that once the motion was passed, the meeting would be over. But not quite. Jake took one parting shot at Lavinia. He said (and I am paraphrasing from my notes here: ‘You had ample time to inform the Board [of the delegate vote]…You have treated this Board with contempt…and the delegates represent no students other than themselves…It is the sole fault of the Executive that we are in this position’. For a guy who ran on Lavinia’s ticket three months ago (although has admittedly been out in the cold for a while now)…wow.

Lavinia responded by describing how vague the talks she had had with NUS were. How nothing was decided upon until the last minute, and that she could not possibly be expected to inform Board of the developments of every ongoing negotiation she is involved with.

Jason Virgo then speaks. Another event worthy of its own headline. He speaks well too. He’s angry: ‘We elected an Executive; it is ridiculous to them overturn their motions just because we don’t like them’. He believed what he said, but I can’t help but think he missed the point. Executive was elected to follow the rule, which they did not do. They were not elected to do whatever they liked outside of the Constitution. I figure that if Executives decision was made automatically void, as it did not follow the rule, Jason would not have made the mistake of seeing this as a rejection of Executive's authority.

After this, Strong speaks up once more. He wants Board to put aside their political differences. How quaint. Board is generally appreciative of the fact that he has spoken, and for the most part seem glad that the meeting is nearly over.

Mark then brings up the numbers issue on Board. Basically, there are six factions on Board, each with more or less three members. Six NUS positions could thus be nicely divided up according to the wishes of the voters, as expressed via the only vote they had left open to them. It’s a good point, but one that should have been bought up at the last Board meeting when delegates were decided upon. It sure helps to spring things on Board when you want to get a dubious motion passed.

The next motion is to approve the funding for the delegates, as opposed to the costs of affiliation. It is put forward by Ash and Strong. Mark and John are against. There are six abstentions, being Fletcher, Andrew, Aaron, Jake, Lavinia, and one more person who’s name I didn’t manage to get down (let me know if you know who I’ve missed).

The meeting took nearly three hours, closing at seven forty-five pm.

Truth be told, at the end of it all, it was all somewhat anti-climactic. The crusading knights out to right the wrongs of the executive ended up being on less solid grounds than they thought. It didn’t help that when faced with the counter-arguments presented by Labor, they split into two camps. Not that that should be a surprise to anyone: how easily can a Green and the Liberals stay united? Jake’s contempt for Lavinia’s style of rule was however made vividly clear at this meeting, and is likely to have future repercussions. Furthermore, at the time of writing, it appears that The Advertiser is preparing to run a story on the alleged corruption involving NUS at Adelaide Uni. This, needless to say, is a huge embarrassment for both Lavinia and David Coluccio, even if the story portrays them in a good light.