This really should have been posted before the end of 2008, but I was inexcusably too caught up in other things. Appologies to the Board directors who commented on this story some weeks ago, but did not have their views posted until now due to my laziness.
The scuffle over NUS delegates, as well as the manner in which affiliation was secured, led in early December to several Board members commenting on a media release outlining their interpretation of events, which was then sent out to The Advertiser. An email was then sent out to all Board members directing them to the AUU’s Media Policy, alleging that such action was in breach of it.
Mark Joyce (Independent/Liberal), who commented on the press release written by former Board director Sandy Biar, wanted it to be known that while he generally has respect for all governing bodies, his reading of the policy leads him to believe there has been no breach. He claims the President (Lavinia Emmett-Grey) is interpreting the policy in her favour as opposed to reading it by the letter. Furthermore, he feels that naturally the executive, who are responsible for what happened, would want to hide their error, and that it is the role of non-executive Board members to expose it. As to the claim that he needed permission to speak on behalf of the AUU, he says: ‘I have not made any attempt to [do so]… Clearly I want to disassociate myself from the majority on this issue’.
After the email was sent out, Aaron Fromm (Independent) sent out an email to Board members informing them that he had withdrawn his comments from the press release. He wanted to point out that he had in fact withdrawn his comments at 11.30 am on the 11th of December (i.e. On the morning prior to the last Board meeting), and had merely sent out the email in order to let Board know that he had done so and not as a response to the media policy email. He gave two reasons for why he chose to withdraw his statements. One, he thought it was not 'in the AUU's public interest for people to be hearing of possible corruption and conflicts of interest'. Furthermore, he felt that the Board meeting gave him sufficient space to air his disagreements. 'I was frustrated… [and] did not at the time see another way…Going to the Advertiser was an idea, but ultimately not a good one' he said.
AUU Board President Lavinia Emmett-Grey declined to comment on this article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As stupid as the idea of going to the Advertiser may have been, I am appalled to see yet another Board Director hide behind the AUU's supposed best interest rather than daring to expose corruption.
So many have privately complained about the corruption of "our" student union, and yet none seem to have the back bone to actually stand up and point it out to the student body, to expose the horrid underbelly of the AUU to some light for a change.
Those few that, from time to time, do stand up and say "Oi! Look what these righteous wankers have done" seem to do so merely as a prelude to a hostile takeover bid. Once wielding some influence, they act in much the same way as those they deposed, either oblivious to or uncaring of their hypocrisy.
What hope is there for the Union if even the idealists on Board can't get past the political practicalities and personal intimidations to speak out against the corruption they see around them?
As a friend of mine recently pointed out to me, it's a bloody good thing the Union has so little impact on my university experience.
lol