Posted: 12th of August
Sometimes in student politics, good things to run on are hard to find. Several years ago, Labor Right candidate Josh Rayner looked at the assets controlled by the AUU, and had an idea. He ran a ticket promising to cut the cost of textbooks on sale at Unibooks, which is owned by the union. After he became AUU President, Josh delivered. That year saw lower textbook costs for students, with Unibooks footing the bill. The not-for-profit bookstore endured massive losses, and has since harboured a grudge against student oversight.
It has been almost three months since the June board meeting. June saw moves to privatise Unibooks suffering a conclusive defeat, in the process dealing a body blow to Labor Right Board director Andrew Anson, who spent significant political capital on the issue. The motion was put forward following a recommendation by the Unibooks Board, which was brought forward by AUU General Manager David Coluccio. The proposal, moved by Andrew and seconded by Liberal Mark Joyce, involved Unibooks paying (sorry, ‘donating’) $750,000 to the AUU in thanks for it relinquishing its ownership and passing it onto the University. It is worth noting that the University had at this stage only offered 'in principle' support to such a deal, with acceptance by the AUU Board being the first step down the road to a change in ownership. Not that that made much difference in the end.
As mover, Andrew had a chance to speak to the motion. His main arguments were that it would ensure the long-term viability of the union to accept the offer, and that he had been assured that this was a good motion. Andrew seemed resigned to a loss from the start, saying that many had already formed their minds on the issue. He called on others to debate and discuss said motion in order to arrive at the right conclusion.
More substantial arguments for the sale of Unibooks were then made by GM David Coluccio. Firstly, there was the issue of the financial windfall to the union. Secondly, it would cost the union almost nothing. And thirdly, he claimed the proposal offered long-term security to Unibooks, whose board currently rates the danger posed by student oversight to at least, one assumes, ¾ of a million dollars. He assured those present that the not-for-profit status of the bookseller would remain. With less on its mind, Unibooks would be able to use some of the money it has set aside in case of student interference to provide further discounts to students. In a nutshell, Unibooks was trying to divest itself of the student risk, giving the Union a tempting cash prize for its compliance.
Once Yasmin Freschi, an Independent, made her case against the proposal, the case was fairly much lost. The Liberals and Labor Right didn’t have the numbers without the independents, many of whom at this stage seemed deeply unimpressed. Yasmin made the point that it was odd that the AUU’s own asset was giving it money in order to belong to someone else. She said that the university was effectively getting something for free.
The Left then picked up the attack. They said they ran in student elections on a promise to keep Unibooks in student hands, and they intended to honour it.
Several other points were then argued, by both the Left and the Independents. Most Board directors who weren’t in favour had something to say on the issue:
• It was pointed out that the Unibooks Board had not come to the meeting to argue their case.
• It was raised that the money being offered, strictly speaking, already belonged to the union.
• The valuation given for Unibooks was disputed.
• The historical legacy of Unibooks belonging to students (who provided the starting funds in 1929) was rendered.
• As was the fact that in eight and a half years (when the funding agreement runs out), the AUU could well need a hand to play in its negotiations with the university.
• Furthermore, many doubted the promise of the entity to remain non-for-profit, citing the bad experiences had with the National Wine Centre (who now has a monopoly on the food and beverage on campus) following the sale of the union’s commercial operations a year and a half ago.
After several hours of rather one-sided debate (only the negative side showed much conviction), the vote was taken. In favour were Andrew Anson (Labor Right), Daniel Bills (Labor Right), John Bowers (Liberal), Ben Foxwell (Labor Right), Sonja Jankovic (Liberal), Jiang ‘Strong’ Jianbin (Independent) & Mark Joyce (Liberal). That’s seven.
All other Board directors (Ash Brook, Paris Dean, Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Yasmin Freschi, Aaron Fromm, Rhiannon Newman, Fletcher O’Leary, Jason Virgo, Jake Wishart and Ye ‘Jackie’ Yang) voted against. That’s ten.
The proposal was lost. Unibooks isn’t going anywhere today.
0 comments: