Posted 8th June
Tomorrow at noon in the Eclipse Room (Lv 4 Union House), the AUU will be conducting a constitutional forum. There have previously been similar forums with most other stakeholders, such as the affiliates, the staff and university. But this is the first time however that ‘general students’, arguably the primary constitution of the AUU, are to be consulted about the new constitution. Given that most of it has already been written, I wonder to what extent this forum exists to seek student views as opposed to merely to sell them the changes that have already been decided on (most of which even I don’t know, most of the constitution having been discussed in-camera). For anyone going to the forum tomorrow who wishes to briefly be aware of some of the more contentious changes (or lack of changes), here’s what I’ve got:
• Board size down to 16 (from 18). All previously consulted stakeholders wanted a Board size of 12, however this was decided against by Board, who settled on 16. This was to “improve the level of cooperation on AUU Board while still maintaining student control of the organization” (quoting the illusive constitutional reform briefing paper).
• Board now has the ability to expel directors for breaches of conduct. This policy was likely formulated in response to Mark Joyce’s (Liberal) decision to contact the Advertiser about what he says was corruption in the union (board. See here for the roundup). His doing so has been seen (though a vote to establish it as such failed) as a breach of the AUU’s media policy, and a violation of his responsibility to act in the AUU’s best interests. This clause in particular is being fought tooth and nail by Paris Dean (Activate). Board also wants to change their ability to remove for lack of attendance from three consecutive missed meetings to 4 missed meetings over the term (even if non-consecutive). This is largely to combat chronic non-attendence by some of the Liberal and international students on Board.
• One of the main functions of the AUU Board is to dispense money to affiliates. Affiliates, seeing Board as far too political for a body which should essentially be an oversight body, wished to be given a position and vote on Board. This has not been granted in this constitution, as it is felt by many on Board that Board Directors are more democratically elected than affiliate heads (who are only elected from a sub-section of the student population), and that they would if placed on board face many conflicts of interest.
• The AUU General Manager’s report earlier in the year strongly pushed for professionals to sit on the Board of the AUU (one model even having an entirely professional Board). This suggestion was not granted. The Board has decided to welcome non-voting professionals on Board committees, but not in the manner desired by many of the AUU’s staff. The staff-member position on AUU Board has also been abolished (according to the Constitutional Briefing paper due to the fact that none of the AUU’s current 15 staff members expressed an interest).
• The affiliate structure has not, to my knowledge, been changed. All present affiliates will maintain a similar relationship to the AUU Board under the new constitution than they do currently.
There are a lot of other changes which are mainly of a administrative nature, and thus I have not included them here.
For any policy wonks among you, you might also be interested in reading the AUU’s Strategic Plan for 2010-2013. If you have any issues with the AUU (and hey, if you're like most students, this is you), I’d recommend coming along to the forum. If you can't make the forum, you can also fill out the survey the AUU is currently conducting.
0 comments: