Posted June 9th
The title is a direct quote from the reaction of an (international student) friend of mine to the article in this mornings Advertiser. What has been written, the validity of which has been confirmed to me by sources within the union, will no doubt cause much questioning on the topic amoung the 5000 international students at the University of Adelaide. It describes how the recently revitalized Australia First Party distributed leaflets outside the North Terrace campus calling for an end to the 'international student rort', the first stanza of which was printed in the Advertiser. I am told the second stanza (not printed in the 'tiser) blamed international students for the financial crisis, or something similarly farcical.
So, I'd like to know why the Australia First Party believed they could stand outside a Group of 8 university (a supposed seat of reason and enlightment?) and distribute this racist garbage. I'd like to know how this happened last month, and I'm only hearing about it now. I'd like to know why those who were distributing the leaflets were not either laughed off North Terrace, or set upon by an angry mob (not that I'm inciting violence, only speculating). I'd like to know whether or not their action qualifies as defamation, and the OSA/International Student Centre can take them to court on the matter (unlikely I know, but boy would it make me feel better).
Let me set a few facts straight (I hope very few of my readers will need to be told this). International students subsidize the education of local students. I do not see what commonly understood definition of a 'rort' one must employ in order to see the prescence of international students at our campus as one. To pay for our education, international student fees were increased at the beginning of this year. Issues with the integration of international students into the university (both academically and socially) was one of the few things the university was criticized on in the previous AUQA report. This suggests that far from getting an easy ride, international students are one of the groups most disadvantages within our university. The same issue of the Advertiser alledges that international students are more likely to be plagiarists (although the article is rather scant on evidence), and documents their issues with finding appropriate accomodation. Both articles suggest the current system of dealing with international students (whether the english requirements or with regards to avaliable accomodation) is not working.
To fit this into a broader national pattern, which the Australia First Party is no doubt wishing to capitalize on, Indian students in Victoria have been recently the targets of what appears to be race-related violence. Demonstrations by the state's several thousand students have taken place (see here for what NUS says on the issue). Julia Gillard has announced a roundtable on international student issues in response to the unrest, for which NUS already has a stack of (in my opinion optimistic) recommendations. This has recieved significant worldwide media attention, not only in India. See here for todays latest. Luckily, South Australia is not currently facing the same issues as Victoria (and New South Wales). No thanks to propoganda from fringe nationalist parties.
Here's to hoping the divisive campaign doesn't resurface.
*One more link (sorry, but it's good): International Students through the ages*
Posted 10th May
It seems that the difficulties experienced between the AUU and the OSA (Overseas Students Association) prior to the recent elections are part of a broader pattern. An article released a few days ago in the Sydney Morning Herald has the National Liaison Committee (NLC) and the National Union of Students (NUS) making no secret of their animosity. Master Shang was on campus at the OSA election last month, and David Wilkins is a former AUU President. The OSA is affiliated to the NLC, with former OSA President Dilan Moragolle now NLC State Convener
Posted April 14th
As those who read the previous post would know, OSA elections took place on the 6th of April. The results are out:
President: Pouria ARYAN (86 votes)
Vice - President: Aaron LEUNG (60 votes)
General Secretary: Sanam AGHDAMY (59 votes)
Assistant General Secretary: Manying QIAO (53 votes)
Education and Welfare Officer: Olive Go (37 votes)
Activities Officer: Junwei Ye (49 votes)
Media Officer: Yiran WENG (Erana) (53 votes)
Naturally, being all done with that would be too good to be true. Due no doubt to time constraints, the election of the three standing committees (Activities, Education and Welfare, and Media) has been held off till Monday the 27 April.
Due to the botched OSA elections last year, these office bearers are only in office for a little over half the usual term, the next AGM being in second semester this year.
Posted April 7th
The Overseas Students Associations (OSA) AGM, which took place on the 6th of April, set new standards in transparency and openness. For the OSA at least. The meeting was publicized in advance, over a hundred people attended, and competition was fierce for the seven office bearer and eighteen committee positions on offer.
Several documents, including the OSA’s Profit and Loss Statement, were freely distributed at the start. The OSA operated on just under $22,000 last year, the bulk of this money going to catering at events, grants and promotional material. Also of interest was the Post-Graduate Students Association (PGSA) handing out a list of candidates they supported, along with ‘the points of our program to run the OSA for this year’. Hmm, this is more than likely to raise a few eyebrows in the coming days, though it didn’t in the end seem to hurt their Presidential candidate. At least the PGSA seems to have supported a lot of post-graduate candidates. They also supported local student Scott Oates (explaining to me that ‘the committee wants him’, more on that later).
The meeting was begun with a speech by outgoing President Dilan Moragolle (who’s been promoted up: now National Liaison Committee (NLC, national faction) State Convener). He was quick to point out the work done by the previous council, ‘without which there would not have been an [effective] OSA’. His opening speech was quickly taken over by questions regarding election procedure, which he referred to returning officer Emmanuel Njuguna.
Next to speak was someone from the NLC. I didn’t manage to catch his name. After he went through a brief history of the OSA, he mentioned, without really expanding on, his preferred model for OSAs, which he called the United Nations Model. I can only assume this implies set positions for each geographical region as opposed to proportional representation. Next, he outlined the NLC’s opposition to the student services fee, saying that ‘international students should not be double-charged’ (international students already pay a non-deferrable fee for student services).
Dilan took the stage again prior to the vote. He warned the new council against those who ‘want to pull your leg and strangle you’. Strong language, which I can only assume was directed at those within the AUU. A question is asked regarding whether local students can pay a fee to join the OSA. Dilan responds that he doesn’t believe it's in the constitution, but that would be a decision up to the new committee. The question is in regards to Scott Oates, a local student contesting a position on the Media Standing Committee. Constitutionally, one does not have to be an OSA member to have a position on a OSA Committee. Emmanuel settles the manner by saying that he plans to work under the assumption that Scott is an associate member, unless this is challenged. It is not, and the vote begins.
There were only two candidate statements submitted prior to the meeting for the Presidential vote. However, when Emmanuel opens up the floor to nominations, two more join. Pouria Aryan gives the first candidate speech. His platform is identical to that preferred by the PGSA, namely, having a annual events calendar, running tours state-wide, running cultural exchange programs, and hosting a series of festivals on campus. From these, he sees the multicultural festivals as the most important thing. He is soon cut off by Emmanuel, who’s strictly enforcing the one-minute speech limit. Next to speak is Xu Ting. He gives a very animated speech asking students why they are at Adelaide University, but is cut off before he has the chance to say anything substantial. Yang Yi speaks next. He says that he sees international students as the most important group at university, but that the OSA has unfortunately experienced some problems in recent months. The one-minute cut-off, once again, stops him saying anything substantive. The last to speak is Robert Qiao. He says he wants everyone to be happy, then stops, short of the timer. He seems nice.
There is a brief recess while the vote is counted, giving me a chance to mingle. From what I can see, none of the students at the vote entered this meeting yet to make up their minds. The whole thing seems heavily factionalized, which makes me wonder why everyone keeps insisting on giving speeches. Furthermore, the ability to nominate from the floor makes the whole concept of written candidate statements somewhat redundant.
The votes are tallied, and Pouria has a conclusive win. He chairs the rest of the meeting.
The other votes are conducted in much the same fashion, with nominations from the floor usually doubling the number of candidates contesting a position. Due to time constraints, and an insistence by those assembled on letting all candidates speak, Emmanuel puts off the vote counting until later in the day. I leave soon after the General Secretary vote, figuring it will be more of the same. When I return later, I find that the box with the ballots has been sealed, and they will be counted at a later date. As such, results for all other positions are pending.
The new OSA President is likely to be welcomed by the AUU, given the breakdown of the relationship that occurred between AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey and Dilan. From what I can see, Pouria appears to be an independent, and not overtly linked to any of the major factions in the OSA. Although, the PGSA endorsement, and the block Iranian post-grad vote, can’t have hurt.
Posted March 24th
I reported a while back that Overseas Student Association (OSA) President Dilan Moragolle had resigned. Well, apparently not. Forgive my mistake, but in all fairness, you’d be confused too.
So, here’s what I now know. The OSA elections were held in October of last year. Proper notice wasn’t given, the quorum of 25 students wasn’t reached (only 22 students showed up, out of an overseas student population of around 5000), there were elections for non-existent positions, the returning officer was invalid…there were a few things wrong with it. It didn’t take long for the union’s legal advice to declare the elections invalid.
Shortly afterwards, Dilan resigned. He did this in an email to the newly elected council. There followed a period where Dilan claimed that as he had never ‘signed the resignation’ (as emails are evidently invalid unless signed), he remained the President. In the February 19th meeting, AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey reported to Board that he had changed his mind and accepted his own resignation. In an editorial I wrote shortly after, I said that he was done with the OSA.
Let’s go back to the elections. Recall that Dilan sent his resignation to the new OSA council? The one whose election was declared invalid? That means Dilan’s resignation is invalid. So, he’s back. The fact that he was one of the improperly elected councilors doesn’t seem to negate the fact that his resignation was invalid. So, he remains the President despite his election having been declared invalid, and his resignation, pending the re-elections which are scheduled to take place on April 6th. Don’t look at me: I’m just repeating the legal advice Lavinia explained to Board.
Posters for said April 6th elections are apparently up, though I haven’t seen any. Nominations opened last Wednesday, and twenty had been received by that Friday. I expect there’ll be a lot more news concerning the OSA shortly, especially if Andres Munoz-Lamilla’s ‘investigations’ are successful (he made a claim at the last Board meeting that a Board director had faked an OSA meeting, though wouldn’t say more).
Ah Dilan. Never say die.
The Big Issues of '09 (that we can see from this end)
In the interests of archiving and accurate reminiscence, below is the article published in On Dit, as written on January 26th. If the elementary and revision-style approach is frustrating, keep in mind that this was written to be the first column the freshers saw for the year.
~~~~~
Everyone’s probably sick of hearing the basics about the AUU, so we’re going to skip the simple parts. If you want the ‘this is what the AUU is’ spiel over again (but more interesting than usual), check out adelaidestudentpolitics.blogspot.com for the details. Instead of the usual intro, here’s five of the big issues in front of the Board at the moment:
1. The National Union of Students and what this year’s proceedings say about the Board
Summer is always a busy time for student politics because it’s the time when six delegates from Adelaide University go to the annual forum of the National Union of Students – the national student advocacy body. This was very controversial at Adelaide this year because the elections for NUS delegate were cancelled and, instead of re-working the elections, or even having the Board appoint delegates from those who nominated for the position, Activate and Pulse – the two most active factions – chose six people to fill the role. Most of those who nominated originally weren’t aware of the meeting in which they could have been appointed until after it happened, and two of the appointees weren’t even on the original list of nominees. Coupled with the fact that the positions were split evenly between Pulse and Activate, this suggested the selection of delegates was about as far from fair and honest as you can get. The positions within NUS are powerful within the scope of student politics, and this forum determines the direction of many NUS policies for the year to come.
Furthermore, when two Board directors gave quotes to an ex-director for a press release on the issue (one director subsequently withdrew his comments before the press release went out), they were brought in front of the Board as having breached AUU policy, and a vote of censure against them was moved. The motion was defeated, but it was a telling response to an attempt to address the corruption within the AUU.
2. The Student Representative Council
In 2007, the Adelaide University’s student advocacy body, the SAUA, died of VSU and fiscal ignorance. The lack of an advocacy body has been keenly felt by the AUU, so there’s been a lot of work put into replacing it with a new, and obviously completely different, advocacy body. Last year’s office bearers were appointed mid-year to a body that legally didn’t exist, and then the elections for the positions were cancelled, causing some to lose faith in the prospect of an operating SRC in 2009. However, there has been a lot of progress with the SRC lately, with a constitution drafted and the successful selection of the SRC office bearers for 2009. It looks like the SRC may actually function this year, though no-one can say how well until we have the office bearers at work.
3. The Overseas Students Association
The OSA last year meandered, wandered and splonked its way through the year, earning endless ire from the Board directors at the time. The elections that were meant to be held in October were held with last-minute notice to a handful of people have been declared invalid (2008 was a good year for elections, clearly). While this is negative in itself, the AUU President, Lavinia Emmett-Grey, has been working with a group of dedicated individuals from the OSA to re-draft their constitution, so that it actually functions. If we get such a passionate and constructive group in after a supplementary election, the OSA might actually do something meaningful for overseas students this year and live up to its status as an affiliate.
4. The Vice President
In the last Board meeting, Vice President John Bowers was put on notice for his continual absences and failure to report to Board. While VPs in the AUU are congenitally underperforming, we’d at least received one written report and a recipe for chicken chowder from the previous VP at this point last year. By the time uni goes back, the Board may have decided to elect a new VP.
5. Reform?
While it’s not an immediate issue, the reform of the AUU governance structure and constitution will be a core issue this year. Constitutional reform is essential if the AUU is to ditch the history of botched operations and factional conflict that has plagued it. The cancellation of some of last years’ elections is simply the latest example of the problems this lack of reform has caused.
Reeling in the Dough: International Student Fees to Rise in 2009
In December of 2008, the University of Adelaide announced that the base international student fees for 2009 would increase, in some cases by up to 30%.
Justification for the Fee Change
Prior to 2009, the University of Adelaide had the lowest fees of the G8 (Australia’s equivalent of the ‘ivy league’) universities. As such, the fee increase was touted as bringing Adelaide into line with the other universities with which it competes for international students. Fee increases per year of study will increase for commencing students, from the 3-8% paid by students who enrolled prior to 2009 to 5-9% per year. All undergraduate degrees offered to international students at Adelaide from 09 will range from $19,000 to $23,000 annually. Undergraduate international fees at ANU (the highest ranked university in Australia, all rankings used being the SJHT academic ranking) range from $20,400 to $22,800 annually (with the exception of the Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, which costs $40,800). The University of Western Australia (ranked just above Adelaide) has most courses costing around $19,000 to $22,000 a year, again with the exception of Dentistry and Medicine. As such, it is clear that the latest fee increases bring Adelaide into line with, or slightly above, the other G8 universities. However, given that Adelaide is ranked the lowest of the G8 universities (on all but the THES-QS ranking), our cheaper cost was one of the points in our favour when we competed with the other members of the G8 (the others being Adelaide’s reputation as a safe city, and the fact that our English entrance scores are the lowest in the G8). The price difference, which took university rankings into account, is now largely gone. AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey is puzzled by the price change, saying that ‘the University of Adelaide seems to have a peculiar logic that increasing prices will improve their ranking.’ Enrolments for commencing international students show no discernable fall in demand.
A Showdown Averted
In early December 2008, information regarding a 30% fee increase in international student fees was circulated among international students. Outcry quickly followed. Of particular concern was the understanding that this increase in fees would apply to continuing students as well as commencing students. Needless to say, continuing students would be forced to pay the higher fees or drop out, while commencing students are able to weigh up the costs at different universities prior to starting their degree.
The university responded quickly to the criticism. Within days, Judy Szekeres (General Manager, Student Services) sent an email to international students in which she stated that:
‘...fees quoted in the 2009 prospectus… are charged to students who are commencing their programs in 2009. It IS NOT the fees that are charged to students that commenced in 2008 or earlier… when the University of Adelaide makes offers to potential international students to study with us we outline the tuition fees that are to be charged. We also indicate a maximum annual increase (3% to 8%) that may be applied to tuition fees after the completion of the year in which the student is to commence'.The misunderstanding cleared up, international students were able to enjoy the festive season with one less worry on their mind.
International Students at the Univesity of Adelaide
International students made up 27% of University of Adelaide students in 2007. 50% of these students are from Chinese origin. The university is aiming to increase its international student ratio to 30% by 2012. Given the rapid rate of increase for the 2005-2007 periods, and the lack of a slackening in enrolments following the fee rise, this aim is likely to be reached. The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) identified several issues faced by international students at Adelaide, highest among these the ‘different worlds’ inhabited by internationals and locals, employment difficulties, and the inadequacy of help with English. These difficulties have been recognized by student politicians: in last years AUU Board elections several candidates, as well as an entire ticket (‘Passion’), ran on platforms which acknowledged the added difficulties of being an international student at Adelaide.
Needless to say, there is often a temptation to view international students as little more than revenue-boosters for universities. This view is often reinforced by the social barriers, chosen or otherwise, that often exist between international students and the locals (also, read this). Financial difficulties are prominent among concerns expressed by international students. Often their fees are paid for by parents back home, but their day to day living expenses must be covered by their taking part-time work. SRC President Paris Dean often discusses this issue with internationals. ‘International students have told me that because of visa restrictions on employment many turn to jobs paying less than a third of the minimum wage to supplement their income, just to pay rent and other bills,’ he says.
International students are allowed to work up to 20 hours a week. Prior to June 2008, they had to lodge an application to the government to allow them to work, paying a $60 charge. This is no longer the case: midway through 2008, the visa restrictions requiring international students to work were changed, with internationals applying after this date being automatically granted the right to work up to 20 hours during semester time with their visa grant. Nonetheless, the limit on work hours often leads to difficulties in acquiring adequate accommodation and other essentials. As such, it is of little surprise that the internationals were adamant to ensure that increase must not apply to continuing students, with the Overseas Students Association (OSA), in conjunction with the Students Representative Council (SRC) and the Chinese Students Association, quickly stepping in to try and lobby against the perceived University policy.. Thankfully there was no need, with continuing student fees remaining as outlined on their university offer letters
Signs of Things to Come?
Forgive this mammoth of a post. I figured the issue deserved as little paraphrasing as possible. Or maybe I'm just a horrible reporter.
The much-anticipated December Union Board meeting was one of the most attended since the election of office bearers. Yasmin Freschi (Independent/Clubbers)was absent (overseas), as were Rhiannon Newman (Activate, at a family function) and Daniel Bills (Pulse) (interstate). Fei Tang (Passion) did not make an appearance (reason unknown). Apart from that, though, everyone was there for most of the meeting, including (surprise surprise) Sonja Jankovic (Liberals), Jianbin ‘Strong’ Jiang (Passion), and Ye Yang (Passion). The reason for the spike in attendance was clear: those concerned at the manner at which both the NUS delegates had been appointed, and at the actions taken at the subsequent Executive meeting, were mounting a challenge, which the (overwhelmingly) Labor delegates were preparing to fight.
Some questions were asked at the beginning of the meeting. Ash Brook (Independent/IndyGo) asked if Board members can attend Executive meetings. AUU Board President Lavinia Emmett-Grey (Independent/IndyGo) said that to the best of her understanding it is a close committee of Board, and thus no (There is nothing stating as such in the Rule on Committees, but it could be stated somewhere else). Soon after, by mutual agreement (helped along by procedural insistence by the Chair. i.e. Lavinia), all the interesting stuff was left to ‘Any Other Business’ at the end of the meeting, and thus Board breezed it’s way through its written concerns. Lavinia’s report was in the Board pack. She spoke briefly about it. Vice President John Bowers (Liberals) then presented a verbal report. It was extremely polite, and said absolutely nothing. From my recollection, he apologized that he had been extremely busy with his army commitments, meaning he did not have time to prepare a written report, before wishing everyone a Merry Christmas. How sweet of him.
The Board then moved onto the issue of the Oversea’s Student Association (OSA), which has been acting up again (not submitting reports, President Dilan Moragolle “not doing anything” etc). Several board members raised the question of whether it was effective to take any stronger action against the OSA, especially given that it had already been put on notice. Lavinia responded by pointing out that they had been put on notice for failing to submit two of their monthly reports, and, after being put on notice, had submitted them, and thus they had been taken off notice. Therefore, it was fine to put them on notice again, before considering stronger action (such as dis-affiliation). Strong (Passion) asked a question, and then made a comment. I didn’t quite catch it, but the mere fact that he spoke deserves a blog post all on its own. Board eventually decided to ‘express its displeasure’ in the minutes, as well as putting the OSA on notice. Again. That’ll teach them.
Board then decided to take steps to increase its involvement in the Waite and Roseworthy campuses. Andrew Anson (Pulse) somewhat pointedly remarks that ‘this is a good chance for Board directors to realize that this university doesn’t stop at North Terrace’. I have no idea what the attitude was about. Paris Dean (Activate) asks what benefits those at the other campuses have to gain from AUU Membership. Lavinia and Andrew respond by pointing to the Ambassadors card. A motion is passed for Lavinia and Andrew to address students at these campuses (the Roseworthy Proposal). The colonization begins.
AUU General Manager David Coluccio then asked that he be given permission to take up to $100,000 out of this years budget in order to fund various renovation and maintenance issues. He thinks this should be done now, while there is a surplus. Paris asked why there is a the problem with doing it out of next years reserves, as opposed to this year’s surplus. It’s a moot point, and Board approved the motion. There was some discussion on the air-conditioning, which Board has to fund. Apparently, one of the reasons Board sold commercial operations was that it would make the university responsible for structural maintenance. Given that the air-conditioners were installed by the Union, and not part of the original structure, they do not fall under the university's jurisdiction. Aaron Fromm (Independent/Clubbers) wanted the air-conditioners to be at least a 4-star energy rating in terms of energy efficiency. Those who considered him a Liberal were momentarily shocked, but recovered their composure as they realized he just wanted to save a buck.
Board was informed that the price of lockers is to double next year, to $20 for AUU members, $30 for non-members. The number of lockers is also set to increase, with repairs taking place on those which need it. Lavinia cut off various Board members who spoke out of turn on the speaking list. The look on the face of one of them in particular was priceless.
Andres Osvaldo Munoz-Lamilla (Sports Association President) turned up at 6:15 pm. That brought up to three the number of affiliate heads who attended the Board meeting (the other two being the Clubs Association VP Justin Kentish, and SRC President Paris Dean). Andres started gossiping and making faces at the back of the room. Lavinia threatened to kick him out. I think he left at this point.
Any Other Business. This was fun.
For those who haven’t read the last few entries (which I encourage you to do, trust me, they’re juicy), this is what happened so far:
Adelaide University each year sends six delegates to the National Union of Students (NUS, they'll be here when they decide getting their website up is a good idea). Elections for the NUS delegates were cancelled in August, due to procedural irregularities. By all appearances, this was the result of incompetence and dodgy legal advice rather than an intended outcome on the part of Lavinia and her Activate allies. So far, bad, but understandable. Next, at the last Board meeting, Lavinia claimed that NUS wanted a list of the delegates being sent. This was before NUS even informed the AUU of what the affiliation fee was. Lavinia then presented a list of six delegates, two of which had not even been NUS nominees when the elections were expected to go forward. Four of the people who voted in favour of this list were on it. This vote was sprung on many of those not in Pulse and Activate (the two factions whose candidates made up five out of six of the NUS positions), who were not aware it was to take place in the closing minutes of the Board meeting. This was especially brutal given that Lavinia had assured Board she would keep them informed of what was going in with NUS delegates at October meeting. Board had been assured during the November meeting by Paris that a vote on the delegates was not a vote on affiliation, giving the impression to some that there would be a vote on affiliation at some future date. And so there was, but not at Board. At the last Executive meeting, on the 28th of November, Executive approved the NUS affiliation fee, of $3300. This was in breach of the rule on Executive spending, which places a $2000 cap. As such, opposition to the way affairs have been conducted thus far was multi-faceted, and involved several issues, a fact which greatly complicated what is to follow.
Jake Wishart (Independent/IndyGo, member of the Greens), along with Aaron, put forward a motion that Executive minutes must be approved at the next meeting of Board. Lavinia suggested an amendment that In-Camera minutes be provided only by request. Apart from that, Lavinia also argued that this was already policy. Jake asked why it hadn’t happened then. Lavinia responded by saying there wasn’t enough time (note: The Board packs were sent out six days after the meeting, and I am told the deadline was only one or two days after the Exec meeting). Eventually the proposal is passed, with a slight amendment to the wording: Executive minutes shall be approved at or before the next Board meeting.
Next, there was a motion to allow Board members to be non-participatory observers at future Executive meetings. This proposal was extended to the next board meeting pending constitutionality. Lavinia expressed her displeasure at the fact that these motions had not been placed within existing policy, and had been so amateurishly formed.
Next, Jake puts forward a motion relating to conflicts of interest. The motion states that Board members must declare conflicts of interest, and not speak or vote on the issue, as is ‘industry best practice’. Lavinia again encourages Jake to place the motion within existing policy. Jake apologizes, but decides to press on with the motion anyway. It is carried.
While the first three motions were aimed at ensuring that such a debacle never occurs again, the next few deal more explicitly with the past.
The Executives approval of NUS funding then came up. There are questions, raised by Ash, as to whether Executives decision is not already void, given that they overstepped their bounds. This isn’t really answered. Lavinia says she was not aware of the cap being at $2000, having believed it to be a $5000 dollar cap. Both she, and AUU General Manager David Coluccio, apologized for their mistake (Note: Coluccio, according to a strict reading of the rule, has to approve all Executive spending, deeming it ‘necessary to the normal operation of the AUU’. He was absent from said Executive meeting).
Paris then claims that the issues are being bundled. He argues that Board is not in a position where it can refuse to fund NUS affiliation, as some of the delegates are already there, and have already paid out of their own pocket expecting to be reimbursed. As such, he claims they may sue for being misled by Board. Furthermore, he says that this would lead to a situation in which students cannot trust their own union to follow through with what it says it will.
Later, when Paris is out of the room, Mark Joyce (Independent/Clubbers/Liberal) answers his concerns by saying that he had warned the delegates that their funding to NUS was not a sure thing, and that they should be aware of the risk they are taking. Essentially, he said that a mistake by Executive does not justify a miscarriage of justice borne by students who do not have democratic representation (in a lot more words, and nowhere near as clearly). Lavinia questions his assertion to having ‘warned’ the delegates, saying he had never approached her. To be honest, I can’t see how any delegate would have taken Mark’s warning seriously, given that the President of the Board had assured them that their expenses would be paid. He maybe had more ground to stand on with the second point, but he didn’t elaborate on it. This is by far the most aggressive Mark has yet been at any meeting. He claimed Lavinia’s ‘time factor’ excuse is ridiculous, as she had time to ‘stitch up a deal’. Lavinia says there was no ‘deal’. Yea …
I’ll let you be the judge of that.
As the first point, as to whether Executives decision was void, was not followed up upon, Board then passed a motion to void the decision of the Executive. It is passed, with Lavinia, Andrew and Fletcher O’Leary (Activate, NUS Delegate) having their abstentions noted (in accordance with the Conflict of Interest motion passed earlier in the meeting).
After much discussion, the majority consensus seems to be that Board must affiliate to NUS, there being no other ethical option open to it. The challenge mounted by Jake Wishart, Aaron Fromm and the Liberals (Mark Joyce, VP John Bowers) dissolved when Jake said he believed the union should affiliate. The motion to affiliate was passed. Mark and John had their dissent noted.
You’d think that once the motion was passed, the meeting would be over. But not quite. Jake took one parting shot at Lavinia. He said (and I am paraphrasing from my notes here: ‘You had ample time to inform the Board [of the delegate vote]…You have treated this Board with contempt…and the delegates represent no students other than themselves…It is the sole fault of the Executive that we are in this position’. For a guy who ran on Lavinia’s ticket three months ago (although has admittedly been out in the cold for a while now)…wow.
Lavinia responded by describing how vague the talks she had had with NUS were. How nothing was decided upon until the last minute, and that she could not possibly be expected to inform Board of the developments of every ongoing negotiation she is involved with.
Jason Virgo then speaks. Another event worthy of its own headline. He speaks well too. He’s angry: ‘We elected an Executive; it is ridiculous to them overturn their motions just because we don’t like them’. He believed what he said, but I can’t help but think he missed the point. Executive was elected to follow the rule, which they did not do. They were not elected to do whatever they liked outside of the Constitution. I figure that if Executives decision was made automatically void, as it did not follow the rule, Jason would not have made the mistake of seeing this as a rejection of Executive's authority.
After this, Strong speaks up once more. He wants Board to put aside their political differences. How quaint. Board is generally appreciative of the fact that he has spoken, and for the most part seem glad that the meeting is nearly over.
Mark then brings up the numbers issue on Board. Basically, there are six factions on Board, each with more or less three members. Six NUS positions could thus be nicely divided up according to the wishes of the voters, as expressed via the only vote they had left open to them. It’s a good point, but one that should have been bought up at the last Board meeting when delegates were decided upon. It sure helps to spring things on Board when you want to get a dubious motion passed.
The next motion is to approve the funding for the delegates, as opposed to the costs of affiliation. It is put forward by Ash and Strong. Mark and John are against. There are six abstentions, being Fletcher, Andrew, Aaron, Jake, Lavinia, and one more person who’s name I didn’t manage to get down (let me know if you know who I’ve missed).
The meeting took nearly three hours, closing at seven forty-five pm.
Truth be told, at the end of it all, it was all somewhat anti-climactic. The crusading knights out to right the wrongs of the executive ended up being on less solid grounds than they thought. It didn’t help that when faced with the counter-arguments presented by Labor, they split into two camps. Not that that should be a surprise to anyone: how easily can a Green and the Liberals stay united? Jake’s contempt for Lavinia’s style of rule was however made vividly clear at this meeting, and is likely to have future repercussions. Furthermore, at the time of writing, it appears that The Advertiser is preparing to run a story on the alleged corruption involving NUS at Adelaide Uni. This, needless to say, is a huge embarrassment for both Lavinia and David Coluccio, even if the story portrays them in a good light.
Affiliates, advocates and a pretty new website (oh, and perhaps a little referendum one day)
Despite only ten of the eighteen board members showing up to the final meeting (even after the September meeting was cancelled because of a lack of quorum), it was one of the most active meetings of the year, and still ran under time!
An impressive nine of the fifteen new board members showed up to take a look at what they were in for, and had a respectable amount of input into the proceedings.
Two affiliates – the Overseas Students’ Association (OSA) and the Postgrad Students Association (PGSA) were put on notice by the Board. Notice is reviewed at the next Board meeting and, if the Board sees no changes have been made to the state of affairs, it can result in the affiliate losing a share of its funding.
The OSA was brought up (again) for its dodgy reporting practices, on the basis that most of the reports to the Board this year are apparently identical. Not only does this mess the Board around, it also means that the University will have proof that the OSA has been negligent about their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs - the list of things they need to do that year to be assured of their funding) this year. As a result, there would be a strong argument to cut funding to the OSA next year, which would be extremely disappointing for the executive that is chosen at the AGM this month.
Having the PGSA put on notice was far more unexpected, and was a result of the affiliate completely overlooking at least one of their KPIs. There were also suggestions raised in the meeting that the PGSA hasn't been fulfilling its advocacy role towards students, which may have contributed to their being put on notice.
In a tour of the sports facilities recently, President Lavinia Emmett-Grey and Sports Association President Andreas Munoz-Lamilla discovered an enormous need for better upkeep of the university sporting facilities. One of the buildings in the parklands, for instance, was found to have what was thought to be asbestos in the ceiling, which was punctured. In addition, one the walls of the rugby rooms at Waite was so termite riddled that it provided a serious safety danger.
The Board also made some changes to the structure of some of the advocacy spaces – the Rainbow Room and the Women’s Room. These were brought under the banner of the SRC, and the Women’s Officer and Queer Officer respectively now have responsibility for keeping an eye on those spaces and advising the SRC when there’s any issues with that room. This means that there is now a specific individual that problems can be reported to, rather than the general confusion that existed this year.
The Board also voted to establish a new AUU website at a cost of $15 thousand dollars. Paris Dean raised concerns that the money might mean that the Affiliates would lose out on funding as a result, but ultimately the vote was passed. The plan is to have a new and more user friendly youth-focussed website established ready for term one next year. $15 thousand is reportedly seen as a conservative estimate for the website, and the tender that was decided upon has promised a high level of responsiveness to student needs. The site will be moved off the university server, but it is expected that advertising on the site will well and truly make up for the costs.
The other big motion that was passed during the meeting was to determine a more technological and less expensive way to run referenda, seeing as we need to have one (preferably soon) to instate the (currently unwritten) new constitution. Whoever said the Board doesn’t think ahead?
The two options that were discussed were to have voting over Access Adelaide or to have voting conducted on computers in specific ballot areas, in the manner of normal elections but without all the paper. The proponents of online voting argued that it would make voting far more accessible, making it easier for people to vote and allowing disenfranchised groups such as working students a better opportunity to have their say. Those in favour of electronic voting in person argued that it allowed groups to make their arguments for and against to voters in person and ensure that they were aware of the issues, as well as protecting against people sending out emails to their friends asking them to go straight to the site and vote without looking at the other side of the argument first. Despite the suggestion of a compromise – tents on the lawns from which voters could vote on Access Adelaide – the Board voted to have electronic ballots conducted in the same manner as our usual pen and paper elections.
The final motion for the current Board was one of thanks for the work done in the last twelve months and, really, it was a very depressing demonstration of the board’s capability. The Board bickered over exactly who should be mentioned by name in the motion and how it should be phrased. Eventually everything broke down into argument and it was presumed that some sort of motion had been passed, at which point everyone quickly made their escape.
And with that, I give my enormous congratulations to all the involved members of the 2008 Board who, in my personal opinion, have done relatively well. Good luck to all of you new Board members. I will be pleasantly impressed if you can surpass the caring and passion of those who were genuinely a part of the Board of 2008.
By and large, students are a lazy bunch. Many of us skip at least one or two lectures a week and sleep through the remainder. When we skip class, when we hand our assignments in late, we hurt only ourselves. When our Board directors skip meetings and can’t be bothered attending important workshops, they hurt us all. It shows the university, already reluctant to part with their money, that we are just as incompetent and unprofessional as ever. It impacts on the accountability and transparency of the Board. Most importantly, it represents a broken promise, a failure to live up to a basic commitment. These directors were quite willing to set aside a week to campaign in the first place, stoking their over-inflated egos and gaining a useful line for their resume, yet they can’t put aside three hours a month. Pathetic.
With five notable exceptions, every Board director has missed at least one meeting since being elected last year. Six missed two of the eight meetings. Tom McDougall missed three and Yang Shen has skipped out on four. Simon Le Poidevin has managed to attend but a single meeting since November last year, missing five in total. You have to wonder why he bothered running in the first place.
At the May meeting, the Overseas Students Association was placed on notice for (allegedly) failing to meet its Key Performance Indicators. This is the first step towards suspending its funding. Dilan Moragolle, a Board director and President of the OSA failed to show up to that meeting. More disturbingly, despite the obvious importance of the June meeting, he failed to attend until some snack-seeking Board directors retrieved him from an OSA-sponsored party. He apologised profusely to the Board and the OSA’s notice was extended to August. It’s a true shame that an important organisation like the OSA risks having its funding cut due, in part, to its slack President.
That same meeting, important electoral changes were discussed, including the notion that at least four board members each year must have previously served on the board. Yet of the fifteen directors who bothered to show up, three felt the need to leave before the end.
Earlier this year the Board following the advice of its General Manager, David Coluccio, organised a governance workshop to examine how the Union runs and how it should run. He touted it as the most important event of the year for Board Directors. Appallingly, seven directors neglected to attend – Zhen Ji, Justin Kentish, Simon Le Poidevin (surprise), Tom McDougall, Dilan Moragolle, Yang Shen, and Matthew Taylor.
After all this griping about the shameful laziness of many of our Board directors, I would like to commend the following for showing up to the governance session and every Board meeting this year: Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Rhiannon Newman, Emilio Roberts, and Claire Wong.
In shock news, a Board Director delivered their letter of resignation shortly after the deadline for this article. SRC Chair, Ellen Ketteridge, gave notice on Tuesday the 15th of July. Regarding the AUU and SRC, she said, “It’s a nice cause, but not really going to accomplish anything, is it?”. This was Ellen’s first (and likely final) year of involvement with student politics.
By Daniel and Hannah (Daniel will be taking over the column soon).
For those who are curious, the attendance rates were:
Lavinia, Emilio, Claire and Rhiannon: Attended absolutely everything (seven meetings plus the governance session).
Simone, Ellen, Justin and Xan: Attended six meetings and the governance session. (Justin missed the governance session, but he had informed the Board that he was on teaching practice and not an acting member for that period as a result).
Matt Taylor: Attended seven meetings, but not the governance session.
David, Paris and Sam: Attended five meetings and the governance session.
Dilan: Attended six meetings, but missed governance.
Zheng: Attended four meetings and governance.
Tom: Attended five meetings, but missed governance.
Zhen: Attended four meetings, but missed governance.
Yang and Simon: Attended three meetings, but missed governance.
The Funding Agreement and an Array of Acronyms
Should have been posted around May 10th. Sorry guys!
I am shocked. I am amazed. The Board as a whole is actually coming close to impressing me. While there are still some clear indications that this is a student board with a sometimes frustrating lack of professionalism, the Board is starting to shape up and get something done!
The biggest thing (not that the delay was the Board’s fault) was to pass the funding agreement with the University! This means that the Union has $1.2 million this year to share between the affiliates and use for advocacy, education support and events to promote the ever elusive campus culture. Unless something goes horribly wrong, this agreement is expected to last for the next ten years, with negotiation each year as to the exact amount.
The schism between the Overseas Students Association (or at least, their President, Dilan Morragolle) and the rest of the Board continues. Dilan missed the Board meeting without apology, and there was no report from the OSA. They’ve also been conspicuously quiet around campus; their only event since the last Board meeting was one barbecue. The OSA has been put on notice, and the Board has voted to address the issues with advocacy at the next meeting. In the meanwhile, Union Activities Chair Simone McDonnell is organising a number of film screenings (Kenny, Crocodile Dundee and the like) with our international students in mind.
The SRC has also surpassed expectations. By the time you read this, the first meeting of the full council should have been held. Judging by Lavinia Emmett-Grey’s excited description of the enthusiasm and integrity of the candidates, this year’s SRC will be passionate, at the very least.
In a surprise move, Lavinia also brought forward some electoral reforms in what was the last meeting to get them in so that they can be instituted for this year’s accostafest...that is, student election. The first of two proposed reforms was thinstitution of a training evening for all candidates, so that they are all familiar with the roles and responsibilities that they are running for. The second is the introduction of a platform section for groups of candidates in the official election broadsheet. The first measure is an excellent idea that I wish had been instituted long ago. It should mean that new Board members are more aware of their role and responsibilities as the Board of a corporate body. The changes to the broadsheet, however, are unfair, as they give groups of candidates far more coverage than independants. The Union’s General Manager, David Coluccio, has also sought quotes from the Australian Electoral Commission on hiring an independent Returning Officer for this year’s AUU and SRC elections, as well as advice for improving the electoral system for the future.
The only other black spot on the meeting was the general relationship between the National Wine Centre (NWC) and the Union. At the start of the year, we probably all felt general relief to see that all the food outlets but Rumours were up and running, and that everything seemed generally well presented and managed.
However, it seems that this improvement hasn’t continued to other areas of the NWC’s takeover. The Clubs Association has received a number of complaints from the different clubs, ranging from a lack of bins to an inability to access rooms that have been booked to clubs having to pay to use rooms after 8pm. The Clubs Association (note: I’m on the CA executive committee, so there’s some bias here) has also had difficulties in dealing with the NWC, and an event in the Clubs Cup was cancelled as a result. The underlying issues between the NWC and student groups, however, have not been solved. Even the AUU Board meetings have been rushed as a result of the 8pm curfew on rooms in Union House. The University has apparently called NWC management to order over this, resulting in what I expect was a heated meeting on May 20.
Furthermore, questions have been raised about the NWC’s negotiating methods. Firstly, there was the suggestion that the NWC was looking to use the AUU’s membership of the TAG buying group (a group that the NWC could not access independent of the AUU, and which caused the level of acronym use in this article to become quite ridiculous) in a way that would preclude the AUU from using it for their own purposes as well. This was followed by Union President Lavinia Emmett-Grey commenting in the AUU meeting that the NWC’s tactics felt awfully like bullying. This could be seen as a weakness in that she can feel bullied in negotiations or a strength in that she feels able to tell this to the Board and spectators, including the one who will go and publish it for the rest of the uni to read.
Lavinia declared herself ‘shocked’ (apparently in a good way) that the Australian National Union of students has been so active this year, and Simone McDonnell echoed this with a mention that the NUS President (who is visiting on May 21st to meet with the Board) had been promoting student issues on Triple J. There was some concern that the Board might find it difficult to meet their NUS fees this year, but Rhiannon, who has been on the relevant committee, explained that the affiliation fees are based on each student union’s ability to pay as well as their membership.
There was also discussion of the formation of a committee of the presidents of all the faculty clubs on campus. The idea behind this is to develop an authoritative group to look at education issues around the university and take action on them. I expect it will be interesting to see how this initiative pans out, as getting clubs to do extra work can be very difficult.
The OSA, the SRC and any other business
The meeting on April 10 was certainly a lot livelier than most meetings, largely due to Dilan Moragolle, Board Member and President of the Overseas Students’ Association (OSA). Dilan appears to be concerned that the SRC’s International Officer will take over all advocacy for international students (seeing as that’s their job), making the OSA redundant as an advocacy body.
To give some background, the Student Representative Council (SRC) has been formed to replace the old Students’ Association. The SRC will have 9 representative officers:
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Officer
- The Educational Officer
- The Environmental Officer
- The International Officer
- The Postgraduate Officer
- The Queer Officer
- The Satellite Campus Officer
- The Welfare Officer
- The Women’s Officer
The Environmental Officer, the Education Officer and the Welfare Officer can be any student who is willing to join the Union; the other officers must be members of the group that they represent (That is, the Women’s Officer must identify as a woman, the Postgraduate Officer must be studying at a postgrad level, etc).
Taking this into account, Dilan’s concerns about the OSA’s continued validity seem fair enough. What confuses me is that Dilan appears to see this as an attempt to ruthlessly destroy the OSA, rather than a way of ensuring dedicated advocacy for overseas students (something that the OSA appears not to be committed to providing this year, as is covered below). To prevent this from happening, he put forward a motion that the International Students Officer would have to be chosen from the OSA’s executive committee, rather than by general election as all SRC reps will be from 2009 onwards.
As I see it, the OSA has functions besides advocacy, including a socialisation aspect in introducing international students to Australia, making the OSA necessary as an affiliate. In fact, Simone McDonnell told the Board that Dilan had said that the OSA would not be budgeting for advocacy at all this year, preferring to run events for international students instead. So in essence the OSA will continue on doing exactly what it is doing, while the SRC would take over advocacy (…next year, probably. This year appears to be primarily devoted to house keeping). The fact that this concern about advocacy has only surfaced now that it threatens Dilan’s authority has also led to suggestions that Dilan is actually worried about his power far more than the actual provision of advocacy.
At times, Dilan appears to simply be erratic, the best example being that he voted against his own motion in the end, leaving Ellen Ketteridge’s sympathy vote the only one in favour of the motion (Paris Dean, Justin Kentish and Matthew Taylor abstained from the vote). Dilan also seemed to have difficulty communicating with the rest of the board, and frequently resorted to yelling at anyone who disagreed with them, or accusing them of lying.
Possibly as a result of Dilan’s vocal approach to the evening, Lavinia was very strict with the standing orders…most of the time. Dilan was forced to observe the limits on the number of times a director could speak and the duration of speeches, as were most of the other Board members. Rhiannon Newman, on the other hand, appeared to be a law unto herself, and interrupted whenever she felt like it, for as long as she wanted to without the Chair doing anything about it. If Lavinia is going to enforce these rules properly (which I hope she does – it was nice to get through business at a decent pace), she ought to apply them to everyone, including friends.
The other major piece of business that was passed at the meeting was the so-called ‘Barratt Clause’, which made it so that the President can claim their honoraria in fortnightly instalments after they have served that fortnight, or in a lump sum at the end of their term. This makes it much harder for any president to take their honoraria without earning it from now on.