Adelaide Student Politics

Posted 18th July

An SRC constitution was (finally) approved on Thursday the 16th of July. Given that it was an incorporation, this took place not at a council meeting but an Inaugural General Meeting (IGM). All présent were able to vote, including the five observors (three of whom were current Board members). More on this later.

Two constitutions were presented to the meeting, which had the task of choosing between them. The first, referred to as the ‘1 staple’ constitution, was the one approved by the AUU Board, with a change in the membership clause such that only Council members were members of the SRC. This constitution had the support of AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey.

The second, called the ‘2 staple’ (inventive with names aren’t they), was supported by SRC President Paris Dean and SRC General Secretary Robert Fletcher. It was based on the one approved by the AUU Board, but had more significant altérations. The biggest of thèse were in regards to membership, and how the constitution could be amended.

Unlike the 1-staple, the 2-staple had an opt-in system of membership. This thus got around the légal requirements while still keeping membership fairly open. All interested students being members, this also gave général students the ability to call a général meeting of members (by pétition from the elected voting members or a significant number of students). These meetings would have the power to overturn décisions made by the voting members.

One argument made against maintianing a more open membership was the time and effort it would involve. Both Robert Fletcher and Sam Deere (SRC Education Officer) aruged that this was overblown. The AUU currently maintains an opt-in membership system. The other (in my opinion much stronger) argument made against it was the possibilities it opened for stacking (at a général member as opposed to voting member level, despite the much higher number of students required). The ability of général members to overturn the décisions of Council was argued to make stacking particularly désirable for those who wish to waste the SRCs time and direction (the example given was of a right-wing group forcing the SRC to run anti-abortion campaigns by stacking out a général members meeting). Rob countered that the notice provisions would make stacking very difficult. In response, Lavinia Emmett-Grey and Rhiannon Newman pressed the point that as seasoned student politicians, they saw ample opportunity for stacking.

Part of the 1-staple constitution (which only had limited membership) was for there to be a mailing list to which students could sign up to remain inforled of SRC campaigns. Paris Dean and Rob Fletcher were unhappy with this, as the Association Incorporation Act entitles members to certain rights which would have added an additional level of accountability not achieved through membership to a mère mailing list.

The other way that the two constitutions differed was with regards to amending the constitution. The one supported by Lavinia had the option of amending with a four-fifth majority of filled voting positions. The one brought forward by Robert Fletcher also had this, as well as a clause for a referendum that could be called by either an absolute majority of Council, or by a pétition from 400 students.

This change from the original was argued as necessary as the 1-staple’s provision to changing the constitution was practically impossible (if the difficulties with reaching quorum this year are anything to go by), even if the whole Council was in agreement.

The feedback of the AUU Board was specifically against referendums as a way to change the constitution. Fletcher O’Leary made this point very strongly, and argued that the low threshold for a pétition (400 students) could be used by those against the SRC or AUU to continually bleed it of money (referendums being, after all, expensive).

SRC General Councilor Eric Parsonage (who wasn't happy with either of the two proposed models) made the suggestion that a général meeting of students (300 or 1% of the student population, whichever is greater) could amend the constitution with an absolute majority, thus getting around the cost of running a referendum.

The first difficulty with the 2-staple was that only three copies were brought to the meeting. Furthermore, it hadn’t been presented to those assembled prior to the meeting (unlike it’s rival, which had been distributed by email). This gave many who hadn’t seen it before very little time to become very familiar with it. Needless to say, this irked some, especially as it contained significant altérations. Distrust towards Rob Fletcher already running high (it isn’t the first time he presented Policy to the SRC with what was seen as insufficient warning and reading time), this did nothing to help his case.

The 2-staple was put to a vote at 9 :10 (three hours after the meeting started), and failed to get up. The 1-Staple was then approved, with Eric Parsonages proposal as to constitutional change as an amendment.

As outlined at the start of this post, this all took place at an IGM, at which all attendents could vote. SRC President Paris Dean was judicious enough to inform those présent of this, as many of the observors were unaware of this fact. That said, given that général students will now not be official members of the SRC (and are thus deprived of some of the protections that come with membership), I cannot but express regret at the manner in which this meeting came about. General students were not informed on how to attend, nor given any prior information from the SRC about the two constitutions on offer (neither, it is worth noting, were some office bearers). The constitution of the SRC, the activism body of the AUU, was thus decided by a mixture of appointed office bearers, and observors lucky enough to be in on the information flow. Paris Dean, Jason Virgo, Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Fletcher O’Leary and Rhiannon Newman were the only voters who had been in any way elected. Given this fact, it is a pity information abot the IGM was not more widely distributed to interested parties. Communicating with the student body beyond élection week is always difficult, and it appears the SRC has already fallen into the same trap. Sure having more people there makes it more difficult to reach an agreement. It remains the right thing to do.

Newly appointed Public Officer Hayden Tronnolone has his work cut out for him.