Definition: In-Camera
Movement into a closed session, where observers are ejected from a meeting, and those present are legally barred from discussing or revealing what took place in the meeting to any not present.
Dearest Board,
I’ve been reporting on you for most of your term. You have collectively done a lot of things in that time, many of which I have written about. One concerns me more than most, as it touches on something which I as a member of student media consider a vital interest. This issue is Board’s going in-camera to discuss constitutional reform.
In a democratic student organization such as Union Board, there are three reasons why you may move in-camera whilst not being actively attempting to subvert transparency. These are
a) Issues dealing with harassment of an individual, where making the issue public may be counterproductive to ensuring their dignity, the protection of which is the whole purpose of bringing the issue to Boards attention
b) Issues where the ability to speak freely without fear of legal reprisal (i.e. charges of defamation) is necessary. This might also include dealing with issues relating to an employee of the AUU.
c) And finally, issues of commercial advantage, where maintaining an open meeting makes the Board unable to adequately advance the objectives of the organization. For example, discussions involving the funding agreement with the university, where the ability of the AUU to bargain with the university is compromised by open meetings.
Anything which directly affects the student population at large must, barring it needing to stay in-camera for legal reasons, be discussed in an open manner. Constitutional reform is something that must be open to student scrutiny and input. I believe the superior morality of keeping such discussion open is obvious to you all, and so will not go into it. Rather, allow me to argue this pragmatically.
By going in-camera, general students are barred from knowing what the significant issues being discussed are. By going in-camera, Board directors are barred from seeking advice and input from the wider student population in any effective way. This affects both the quality of the constitution, as well as your ability to get it passed.
I am not one of those who believe that Board has only gone in-camera this year to discuss constitution. I believe Board members when they say that there were genuine issues of harassment discussed this year which required in-camera protection. That said, every time Board goes in-camera, especially to discuss constitution, that trust is diminished. And I have more trust in the AUU Board than most. When Board goes in-camera to discuss things which should not be in-camera, the whole concept of in-camera is cheapened. This affects your chances for re-election, should you wish to run again. It also affects every Board member in a much more uniform way.
The new AUU Constitution which you are working so hard on needs to be voted on by 10% of students, and 60% of students must vote ‘Yes’ in order to be passed by the student body at the next general elections (See Part 24, AUU Constitution). Keep students locked out of every but the last step of the process of constitutional reform, and your ability to secure a ‘Yes’ vote on this document you have all been haggling over is severely diminished. Those who for one reason or other oppose its being passed will find it easy to attack it not on its content, but on the process in which it came into existence. Students already distrust their elected representatives. It would be very easy to spin a line of alienation of the student body, turning the vote to adopt the new constitution into one about whether or not to reject the legitimacy of the AUU. This is not a battle anyone who cares about the student union at Adelaide should wish to get into.
Compromises will be made with this constitution. No faction will receive 100% of what it wants. This process is the strength of the AUU Board. By keeping it open to scrutiny, you make it possible to explain to students why the final constitution is in the form it is, as opposed to what they may personally prefer. It makes it possible to present the constitution plainly as the result of compromise and agreement by all factions as to the best way for the AUU to move forward into the future. Keep the process secret, and you make it harder to present the constitution as anything but an alien document to students.
Lavinia, I know you have gone to some efforts to try and ensure students have input into this constitution. This is an issue I know you care about. However, as long as the discussions happen in-camera, any efforts you make will not work. Without knowing what the issues and the different positions on them are, general students will not be able to make meaningful contributions to the debate. By discussion of constitution in-camera, Board directors are prevented from discussing these things with students informally, and any formal process to solicit feedback will be unlikely to yield useful suggestions. Furthermore, students have no way to be assured that their input will be considered at all, as it will not be bought up in any democratic forum they can view personally, hear about second-hand, or read about in the pages of On Dit.
To make my point vividly clear to the rest of Board, I give you two examples of affiliates who are currently undergoing constitutional reform, and the pitfalls they have faced when not following the ideal procedure.
Firstly, consider the Clubs Association. Earlier this year, an executive meeting took place in which it was ruled from the Chair to move in-camera for a discussion regarding constitution. When this was discovered at the next council meeting, clubs were aghast. Executive was informed in no uncertain terms that any repeated attempts to move in-camera for discussion of such issues was not okay. The new constitution remains to be put to council at the next meeting, where the lack of initial consultation means it will be treated with more suspicion than it would have otherwise received.
Secondly, the SRC recently adopted a new set of standing orders. When they were first put to the council, the vote on them was deferred until the next meeting. This was less due to specific issues with the standing orders, than a result of the manner in which they were presented to council. General Secretary Robert Fletcher had written them without informing the council that he was doing so. He followed the letter of the law in mailing them out five days prior to the meeting. Regardless, councillors were generally mistrustful of the manner in which they had been presented with standing orders, and demanded more time to consider them.
It might seem easiest to just buckle down and figure things out among yourselves, in the comfort and security of in-camera. However, doing this for constitutional reform is wrong. Many of you are aware of this, and justify your actions on pragmatic grounds. But this is flawed also. By discussing the issues of the constitution only in-camera, you make it more difficult for the student body to embrace it in October, making it more difficult for it to pass. If the constitution is not passed by the student body, all your input and hard work into it will have gone to waste. Students will be alienated from their union, something which happens enough already, and your ability to offer a long-lasting and tangible contribution to the next few years of the AUU will be compromised.
Do not speak of democratic mandate. Firstly, as I assume most of you know better than to claim that the annual AUU elections are a good way to gauge student support for particular candiates. But this is not necessary to my argument. Even if elections did show that the student body has made the educated decision to place you in power, unless you propose going in-camera to discuss all business of the AUU, to claim it for some things and while acknowledging the importance of accountability in others is an inconsistent argument. The benifits of going in-camera to discuss constitution are few, and easily achieved through more transparent means. If you are worried about disruption of meetings, this may be dealt with in the usual, open way (by removing the offenders through specific motions). If you are worried about the negative publicity backlash which may occur if unfavourable motions are discussed or adopted in relation to the constitution, let me assure you this backlash will be less than that likely to occur if students become aware that the entire negotiations for this constitution have occurred behind closed doors, and are instead presented with the controversial changes only after they have been drafted. You can trust students to have an over-developed sense of mistrust towards the AUU over an active concern in the issues.
Some of you (off the top of my head, Ash Brook, Mark Joyce, and Jake Wishart) have often voted against procedurals to move in-camera to discuss constitution. For this I applaud you. To the others, I hope I have convinced you: you have so little to gain from going in-camera, and so much to lose. I hope you keep this in mind next time you vote on a procedural to lock students out of discussions involving the constitution of their student union.
Yours,
Myriam Robin
0 comments: