The Short Version:
• Resignations leave two empty positions on the SRC, including one on the executive.
• Ability Officer Natalie Wade is elected to SRC executive
• General Secretary Rob Fletcher’s proposed standing orders are deferred to the next meeting.
• Robs most-used phrase: This is ridiculous
There is a fine line between student politics and student activism. The SRC, while it’s become known as ‘the political arm of the union’, is in fact the activist arm. However, no matter how united ideologically united a group of people are, it’s only a matter of time until an internal politics develops. The SRC meeting of the 7th of May made this vividly clear.
The meeting began with AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey (who is a non-voting member of the SRC) asking SRC President Paris Dean to contact those who have been repeatedly absent. No issues there.
Education Officer Sam Deere, Ability Officer Natalie Wade, and General Secretary Robert Fletcher report to the SRC on the various university committees and boards they have attended. Something interesting to come out of Academic Board was that the university is discussing the removal of specialist mathematics as a prerequisite for electrical engineering. This is intended to encourage women into engineering. Given that high-level maths is however a requirement for most engineering courses, this would necessitate holding a summer bridging course for those who haven’t completed specialist maths, in a similar vein to what is currently done for economics (except, economics doesn’t require anywhere near the same level of mathematical knowledge).
The agenda then moved onto resignations. Two resignations have been received. Therefore is currently no policy for filling these positions, so a motion outlining the procedure must be passed. This is left to a latter meeting to be drafted. These resignations however do leave a space on the SRC executive. Helen Chandwick (General Councillor) and Natalie Wade have both nominated. Helen is absent, so Rob (who’s acting as returning officer) doesn’t allow speeches. The vote goes to Natalie.
Welfare Officer Lauren Moulds then distributes a report about the student poverty actions recently completed. It came out in the discussion following this that the university would not allow the sleep-out to go on without a guard present, and a forty-page security assessment. SRC complied, but in the end the guard did not show up. Lauren was congratulated by Ashleigh Lustica (General Councillor). Paris then informs the SRC that he has received a phone call from Anglicare. They currently put out information sheets for financially disadvantaged groups on how to save money. After seeing the student poverty actions in local media, they have decided to compile one targeted at students.
As the SRC is a new body, much of its policy governing procedure has still to be written. Five days prior to this meeting, Rob Fletcher had sent out draft Standing Orders to the SRC. These Standing Orders are then put to the SRC, who have severe misgivings.
Firstly, an amendment is moved by Rob, seconded by Paris, to require indigenous recognition at the start of every SRC meeting. This is passed with no contention, in stark contrast to when the issue was raised at an AUU Board level (the benefits of appointment).
Issue number 1. With Officer Reports, Rob has written the orders to require submission 48 hours prior to the meeting. Lauren is worried that there is no provision for verbal reports, and no recognition that circumstances can change in 48 hours. Rob argues that giving council time to consider reports enables it to make better decisions. Furthermore, standing orders can be suspended in emergencies, but this should not be the norm. Issue resolved, somewhat. But there is more to come.
Issue number 2. General Councillor Hayden Tronnolone disagrees with the provision to go in-camera. He doesn’t think it’s a good idea for the SRC to have the ability to do so, no doubt fearing its abuse, and doesn’t think the SRC will have reason to.
Rob answers that it should not occur unless absolutely necessary. He points to the protections in the standing orders, such as having to declare what is to be discussed in the motion. He claims it will be necessary in the case of legal advice, employment issues, or individual harassment. Rob thinks there will be significant difficulties if the SRC has no capacity to go in-camera.
Lavinia then comments, saying the most likely case this will be used in is harassment. ‘There are some things are not appropriate to be discussed and minuted openly’, as they would leave the body open to defamation charges.
Rob reiterates: the SRC can only go in-camera on specific issues, not for the whole meeting. Hayden questions how often the SRC will deal with these types of issues.
General Councillor Eric Parsonage then puts a motion that the ability to move in-camera is suspended for the duration of this term, as ‘we weren’t elected, so we have no democratic mandate. We should be more directly accountable’. Rob disagrees. ‘That argument doesn’t hold up…harassment issues could come up in this term’.
Sam attempts reconciliation. ‘It doesn’t need to be considered in the context of a democratic mandate’. He says that the SRC won’t go in-camera on issues which affect the wider student body, and thinks in-camera provisions are important for internal transparency, as otherwise, things will be bought up behind closed doors with some councillors possibly being kept out of the loop. Sam points out that it has to be a very specific motion, which requires a 2/3 majority.
The discussion then takes a turn I didn’t expect when Natalie says she doesn’t want her portfolio to be diminished by her not being able to discuss sensitive issues relating to disabled students with the rest of the council. Jason Virgo (Queer Officer) adds that his portfolio could also require in-camera protection. Which is a broader interpretation of in-camera than normally allowed.
But moving on. Discussion being more or less exhausted on that aspect of the standing orders, a question is then raised regarding a clause which prevents a copy of in-camera minutes being disclosed to non-voting members (currently, this means the AUU President). Most councillors find it needlessly obscure. Hayden asks if individual councillors can divulge in-camera minutes. Paris answers: No. Hayden asks if council can take action against a member for doing so. Paris again answers in the negative, but points out that the councillor would have broken the law. Hmm, getting ideas Hayden? Soon Rob withdraws the clause (this is one he doesn’t seem to want to spend much time defending).
Most specific points of concern having been addressed, Paris invites general comments on the standing orders.
Lavinia is the first to speak. She begins by reminding everyone that the SRC is a democratic body. As such, the standing orders which govern its processes are important, as they are ‘essentially your ability to speak’. Although they were received five days before the meeting, she claims that no one was aware they were even being drafted. Most of the SRC has no experience with political organizations. As such, council should have been made aware of what was going on, and some consultation process should have been in place. As it is, ‘no consultation took place other than that between the general secretary (Rob) and the president (Paris)’.
Rob answers by stating once more that regulations only need to be sent out five days before a meeting. He also claims that he told Lavinia he planned to draft standing orders six months ago on the previous SRC (to cries of ‘but that wasn’t us!’). Rob thinks that if people had issues with the standing orders, they could have raised them before this meeting.
Ashleigh then makes her displeasure clear. ‘We were shoved aside. It’s not enough for Lavinia to know, we have to as well’.
Lauren Moulds doesn’t think the council has had enough time to consider. ‘I don’t study law, I have no idea what half of this is. It’s a powerful document, one we haven’t had the time to seriously consider’.
General Councilor Sarah Anderson agrees. She doesn’t want to pass the standing orders tonight.
Eric puts a motion that the adoption of the standing orders is deferred until the next meeting. To which Paris replies that it has to be a procedural motion. No procedural is put.
Rob speaks again. ‘I would like to make council aware that no one emailed me with questions about this. Not once was it raised with me in the past 5 days’.
Lavinia suggests that if council does defer, Rob can provide it with examples of the documents he drew inspiration from, as this would be ‘empowering to council’. Rob doesn’t look pleased. Lavinia continues on. ‘These regulations are being used to control debate’. She points out that many councillors are unaware of their rights with respect to standing orders, and that it isn’t fair to ask them to adopt them before everything is explained. Ashleigh concurs, saying that in future years, more explanation will be required for new councillors. She also says that Rob needed to invite consultation, as ‘we didn’t even know who to get in touch with’.
Rob is happy to explain whatever is necessary. ‘What I’ve proposed is very standard. I wouldn’t have thought this would be so controversial. You’ve had five days, and tonight, to have your concerns addressed’. Lauren and Sarah both respond by saying they needed more guidance as to who to approach.
Sam, again, tries to reconcile the different camps. He suggests a glossary of terms that need clarification at the start might make people more understanding of what they are reading. Rob is happy with the amendment.
Jason then speaks up in Rob’s defence. ‘Let’s not place blame here. This is fairly standard terminology…it’s not that hard to give Paris or Rob a call. Natalie makes the same point more forcefully. ‘Don’t be so pathetic as to say you didn’t know who to contact. While it would have been ideal for Rob to invite feedback, it’s obvious that you go to your president or whoever sent the email with questions’.
Hayden speaks. ‘I’m glad Rob drew these up, as I sure as hell wouldn’t have’. He thinks that if the issues have been talked out, the SRC should just vote. Sarah still thinks they need more time.
Natalie leaves. Council is down to it’s corium of 11 members.
Sarah has issues with the agenda being set by the General Secretary. She thinks it should be set by the executive or president, and just sent out by the secretary. Did I say Rob didn’t look happy before? Well, imagine his face now. ‘The standing orders proposed say that I have to consult with everyone on council. This is more democratic as opposed to less consultation with a smaller body, and more democratic than most standing order for similar institutions,’ he says. Sarah thinks the seat of power should be the executive or president, not the general secretary. Jason says this is common to most committees he has sat on. Rob says that seeing as the Gen Secs role is administration, and the agenda is administration, he doesn’t see what the problem is. ‘If I don’t put something that was requested on the agenda, make an issue out of it in the meeting’.
Lavinia wants the President to be in the clause. She fears that if the President and Gen Sec are from different factions in future years, the President would effectively be locked out of the agenda formation. Rob says that while the President isn’t specifically mentioned in the clause, it does say he has to consult with every member, which by definition includes the president. Lavinia says the President should nonetheless have a role in producing the agenda, as it gives him the ability to set the direction of the body.
Rob says that the executive can alter the order of the agenda, as can the meeting. ‘Withdrawn, I don’t care anymore’, says Lavinia.
Rob doesn’t let the issue go. ‘I completely disagree. My role is admin. This is admin. Furthermore, I have to consult with everyone. If you’re not happy with the order, you have the ability to reorder. This is ridiculous’.
Sam suggests defining the terms ‘responsibility’ and consultation’, as they imply the general secretary has more power than is actual.
Women’s Officer Mel Huddleston then comments that she feels Rob is getting unnecessarily defensive. ‘I think it needs to be clarified that we’re not targeting you Rob… You keep saying ‘me’, or ‘my’. It’s not about you, but the role of general secretary. It’s to avoid problems in the future.’
Rob says he doesn’t see what the issue is. Lavinia says the issue is that he knows the rules for getting around standing orders, and most councillors don’t. She would like to see everything explicitly written in the rules. Lauren puts a procedural to defer the vote on the motion. It’s passed by narrowly won.
Lavinia then suggests that, as an action item, Rob can send out his 3 favourite examples of standing orders. Rob flatly refuses. ‘NO! That’s ridiculous! This has taken multiple months... I’m not gonna send out my 3 favourites. I wouldn’t really even know which I’ve referenced,’ he says.
The meeting closes a few grants and minutes later.
Needless to say, many councillors remained uneasy about the adoption of standing orders, despite, in my opinion, Rob having given decent defences for many of the concerning aspects. Paris seems to take his role as an impartial chair rather seriously. He hardly said anything apart from clarifying legal points. By far the most ironic thing I found about this whole debacle is that the SRC still doesn’t actually exist. Tweaking the constitution has now taken close to six months.
0 comments: