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.
Signs of Things to Come?
Despite recent events, it would be foolish to dismiss the political ability of the Labor Right faction.
The right-wing faction of the Labor Party (which runs on its own ticket and is largely hostile to the left-wing Activate ticket) faced an electoral wipeout in the past Union Board elections. All its experienced Union Board directors who were running for reelection, David Wilkins, Simone McDonnell and Claire Wong, lost their seats, to be replaced by PULSE newcomers Andrew Anson, Daniel Bills and Ben Foxwell. Of these, only Andrew Anson appears to be a committed factionalist. All three lack experience, and in the short term are unlikely to provide a counter to the confident voices of Lavinia Emmett-Grey, Rhiannon Newman and Paris Dean.
In such a situation, it is not surprising that the faction sought to regroup. Two months after the election, it came to the attention of the Clubs Association Executive that certain high-profile members of the Labor Right were seeking to affiliate a new club, known as the Bob Hawke Appreciation Society. All new clubs must be approved by Clubs Council in order to gain affiliation.
Clubs Council meetings are usually something of a bore. The biggest challenge is usually to get a quorium of twenty club delegates, after which the group rubber-stamps whatever the executive puts in front of it. Not so the council meeting of Thursday, October 30th, which was a saga worthy of the AUU Board.
The Hawke Club’s president, the afore-mentioned AUU-Board Director Andrew Anson, gave a speech glossing over the life of Hawk, claiming that the club existed in order to honor his memory, as well as promoting ‘politics in an environment free of political wrangling’. He pointed out the Whitlam Institute in Sydney as an example of what the club aspired to.
Matt Taylor, the recently returned Clubs Association President, then opened the floor to questions, unleashing the torrent of critique.
It didn’t take long for Rhiannon Newman (AUU Board Member, Labor Club Secretary, and member of the Labor Left) to ask Andrew if this was simply a cover for another Labor Club. She also expressed theatrical disappointment that Andrew would wish to give Labor twice the representation on the Clubs Council.
Nick Grealy, the President of the Labor Club, restated Rhiannon’s objections in a more systematic manner. He claimed it was a duplicate club, that it raised issues of equality through putting multiple ‘labor voices’ on Council, and that although there had been precedent’s set in other Universities, those decisions had not proved wise. Andrew claimed in response that he wasn’t aware of any difficulties between the Whitlam Institute and the Sydney Labor Club, to which the Labor Left produced a letter from the President of the Sydney Labor Club claiming the opposite.
The letter, by Sydney University Labor Club President Rosemary Ryan, outlined concerns similar to those voiced at the meeting, additionally raising the confusion felt by many new students at choosing between the two clubs, leading to a ‘potentially hostile environment in which they compete for membership and profile’. She urged the council to ‘consider these factors’ in making its decision. Andrew tried to answer the concerns raised by Nick and Rhiannon. Dodgy note-taking on my part means I cannot recall his exact rebuttal, nonetheless, the most significant thing to remember regarding it is that it did little to convince the majority of those present.
Jake Wishart, Board member and (disgraced?) Indy-Go faction member, and President of the Greens on Campus, then took the floor. He asked Andrew ‘Do you take yourself seriously?!?’ He then said that the Hawke club had not approached the other clubs in good faith, and that if it wishes to reform itself, the Greens would be happy to support its affiliation in the future (Jake failed to specify exactly how the Hawk society could redeem itself).
James Gould (Debating delegate) asked why the Hawke Club was not able to celebrate the memory of Bob Hawke within the Labor Club, to which Andrew (by now somewhat flustered) replied: ‘We’re doing it through the Hawke Club’. In a more light-hearted question, Alan Carey (Computer Science Club delegate) put forward that ‘You said this club would be free from political ideology. How will you enforce this freedom?’ Andrew answered that this was doable by taking steps to prevent discrimination according to political beliefs within the Hawke Club.
At this point, David Wilkins (former AUU Board President, Labor Right), looking upset at the turn of mood against a club which was expected to secure affiliation, pointed out that many clubs are about debate and discussion, and that previous possible clashes of objectives had never stopped clubs being affiliated before.
A few more questions followed, after which a vote was taken. Five voted to affiliate the Hawke society (myself included), all others voted against.
After moving on to Other Business, Daniel O’Brien tendered his resignation as Clubs Treasurer in protest over the controversial decision, claiming the council had been swayed by ‘emotional displays’ against the Club rather than solid arguments. ‘I cannot be part of an institution whose values I fundamentally disagree with’. He said that it was not the constitutionally defined role of the Clubs Association to pick which Clubs it deemed worthy of existence, and in the absence of demonstrated wrongdoing, it was not right to refuse a club affiliation. His argument, in essence, while emphasizing what a ‘stupid idea’ he thought the club was, centered on the fact that all concerns raised where hypothetical, and it was impossible to discern how the Hawke Club would indeed operate until it had been given a chance. Take them at their word, and punish them legally if they falter.
As he left the hall, Matt Taylor took this as a cue to pose that the Hawke Society could receive an associate provisional association if council so chose. Many of those who had turned up to Council merely to ensure the Hawke Club did not receive affiliation had left at this point. Daniel’s dramatic resignation, coupled with the departure of many of the Labor Left voices in the hall, led the Club to receive provisional associate affiliation, with five voting against. Associate affiliation treats the Hawke Society as an outside body, and not as a student club. This affects its ability to use Clubs space, and the costs associated with participation in events such as O-Week.
Not all those who voted in the Clubs Council were political hacks. A large body of delegates present were representatives from unaffiliated clubs, unfamiliar with the constitution and looking to do the right thing free from political maneuverings. The arguments put forward by the Hawke Club in its defense did not persuade, while the Labor Club had systematic, persistently voiced concerns that were not adequately rebutted. For this reason, the Hawke Club was denied affiliation. The concerns raised by Daniel O’Brien were largely not shared by the majority of Clubs delegates. Very little of the discussion revolved around the constitutionality of denying affiliation, instead being centered on whether or not the motives of the Hawke Society were pure. Being a decidedly non-political body, it was clear that many delegates resented the mechanisms available to Clubs being used for political advantage, and sought to punish this one way or another.
Realistically speaking, the associate affiliation does little to stop the Hawke Society operating on campus. Any group is able to raise money, host events and rally membership without Clubs Association approval. In fact, given that the largest punishment the Clubs Association may pass down is disaffiliation, a lack of affiliation in the first place gives the Hawke Society an uncommon amount of freedom on campus. It will likely claim political thugs prevented its affiliation, and will continue on much as it would have if its entrance into the Clubs community had been smooth. The moral ostracizing was, like so many things that go on in student politics, largely devoid of long-term significance. Next year will show the fortunes of the Hawke Club in its unaided operation. This observer wouldn’t be surprised if the most widely attended Clubs Council in months had little real effect.
Student politics at Adelaide university begins and ends at the unibar. Come four o’clock election night, and it’s understandably packed. Counting won’t start till five, and I’m mildly annoyed that I can’t go and watch. Keeping informed should be interesting, now that I have to rely on the goodwill of those I’m reporting on. Not that it’s their fault. The AUU constitution acts as a straightjacket to most things, good or bad.
I should stop complaining. AUU watch is too new a column to have any institutional power. I’ve been at the Unibar half an hour now, and I’m sitting at a table with one of the two independent tickets. For those not running with one of the two main factions (Pulse and Activate, Labor Right and Left respectably), this election has seen the formation of two ‘tickets’ of independents, designed largely to channel preferences to other independents.
Unlike the factions, independent tickets do not have binding caucuses, but tend to have less clout and electioneering experience than the two factions. IndyGo, headed by 2007/8 President Lavinia Emmett-Grey, and Clubbers, not exactly ‘headed’ but organized by former Board Director Sandy Biar, are the two independent tickets. Few independent candidates have risked going it alone.
Five o’clock, and someone comes over and informs the Clubbers table that counting won’t start till seven. Looks like I’ll be here for longer than I expected. Maybe it’s got something to do with turnout. While the number of votes cast for elections has been edging down every year since VSU, this year saw a boost of 2508 votes, up from 2200 last year, and almost identical to the 2004 (pre-VSU) figure.
Seven thirty, and things get interesting. Primary votes are out, and Paris Dean has a copy. I hang back for a while chatting to some Pulse candidates, before making my way over. Dave Adams, Carey Birchall, Sacha Bolding, Zhang Xi Jin, Zehng Hung Lim, Chelsey Potter, and Lucy Damin score under forty, making it highly unlikely they’ll survive the preference boosts to other candidates. Reactions among the other candidates are mixed. Lavinia ‘I-desperately-need-your-vote-because-I’m-an-independent’ Emmett-Grey is ecstatic at her primary count of 158. Some of the so-called old hacks seem to have lost their touch. David Wilkins, former Board President and star of Electioneering, seems to have experienced a backlash, scoring only 54 primary votes, although my impression is his heart wasn’t in it this election. Rhiannon Newman, head of the Activate faction, has scored only 70 votes, leaving her looking uncertain. Ash Brooks and Daniel O’Brien are all grins at scores in the mid to high 50s, while James Gould doesn’t look anywhere near as happy despite scoring similarly. Jake Wishart had been somewhat pessimistic all week. Unnecessarily so, with an impressive 139 primary votes. I make my way next to him, muttering ‘I told you so’ under my breath.
Make it through with a decent primary vote, and a lot hangs on preferences. From the true ‘independents' (not politically but with regard to how they ran in this election), only Sonja Jankovic and Christopher Overton have pulled good primary counts (at 96 and 64 respectively), and while Sonja looks safe, Chris has a hard time ahead of him pulling enough preference votes to get him through.
Nine Fifteen, and I’m back from my dinner break. I’ve been getting information in bits and pieces, a few minutes earlier having heard that Daniel O’Brien and David Wilkins had been knocked out. Wilkins is a surprise, having been President before Lavinia. He heads, or rather headed, Pulse, the Labour Right faction. After campaigning on a ‘save the unibar’ platform last year, David sold commercial operations to the National Wine Centre in order to secure a ten-year funding deal for the Union earlier this year. This is the first election since the controversial decision, and it seems David’s vote count suffered for it. His popularity among the other factions, never high to start with, hit an all-time low in the lead-up to this election, and it seems the other student politicians in the bar cut him little slack, a cheer reputedly erupting when his failure to secure a place in the top eighteen was known. Soon Kit Richards is out, leaving one less member of Pulse in the running. I go out onto the Unibar balcony, and spy James Gould looking less melancholy than he did earlier in the evening, despite having been knocked out a few minutes earlier. He expresses a hope that his policies (university-wide international student mentoring among others) will be taken up by those who do get on.
Ten Thirty, and the thirty-six have been culled to eighteen. Earlier than I expected, maybe there’s still time to go the Party Party Party.
Wait, you want to know? About their policies? How would you feel carrying a notepad around a pub all night. I gave you the final result, I’m done. Do your own reporting next time. Adios
P.S. I'm just being lazy. I'll upload a policies summary soon, and we can pay out the student pollies about which ones were 'core' promises.
Before I go any further with the current affairs, it'd probably be a good idea to give some impression of the structure of the current Board. This will cover (roughly) the factions that are in place, as well as the more important offices that they hold on Board. I'll leave the more obscure ones out for now. I might write them up one night if I'm desparate to get to sleep or something.
Firstly, there is El interim Presidente, Ms Lavinia Emmett-Gray. Lavinia ran for the last election as an independent, but she's got strong ties with the Labor left, as represented in Adelaide student hackdom by Activate. A distinct possibility for President for the rest of the year.
From here, I'll go by rough factions, starting with Activate, as they house Emilio Roberts. Emilio was chosen as Vice Pres by the Board in October, and due to some weirdness in terms (apparently the President's office only rolls over as of the new year, unlike the rest of the Board, which changed in September) has actually been President this term for longer than David Wilkins was.
Rhiannon Newman, [who is in some way important in the Australian National Union of Students] is also a member of Activate. In many ways she is the leader of the faction, having conscripted most of the current Board members for the group.
Ellen Ketteridge is the head of the Student Representative Council, which is the AUU Board's political affiliate. Previously this group was the Students' Association of the University of Adelaide (the SAUA or, affectionately in most cases, the Sewer).
Finally for Activate, there is Paris Dean, who holds no official position on the Board, other than as a good person to go to if you want a debate. On fairly much anything, really.
The second faction to be covered is Pulse, officially led by David Wilkins, former President of the Board.
Simone McDonnell, the Union Activities Chair, is the next Pulse member. UAC is often considered to be one of the most important offices on the Board, as they are responsible for making sure that there's some level of 'campus culture' around the place. This includes big events like O'Week and Prosh as well as the smaller events like bar nights and live music on the lawns.
Claire Wong and Dilan Morragolle make up the last two members of the Pulse faction. Claire is another rank-and-file Board member, but Dilan is increasingly appearing more focussed on his work as President of the Overseas Students Association, to the extent that he spoke in favour of sacking David at the last meeting.
The other two 'factions' are more loose groups formed for the sake of convenience during the election, but as they tend to vote similarly, I'll still address them together. The 'internationals' are Yang Shen, Zhen Ji, Zheng Lim and Tom McDougall. I haven't had much of a chance to talk to anyone other than Tom, and as such I don't really understand much of their structure. So far all four of them have either been silent or, in the case of the last one, absent for meetings. (This may be because the last meeting was during international students' orientation week).
The fourth faction is the 'independent' faction, not to be confused with the 'indie' faction of student politics that existed at a national level. The 'indies' are Matthew Taylor, Simon LePoidevin, Alexander 'Xan' Jenner-O'Shea and Justin Kentish. Matthew Taylor is President-elect of the Clubs Association.
The eighteenth and nineteenth members of the board are both from outside the factions. Sam Kirchener is the med student who is traditionally elected to the Board. There is only ever one, but that one is practically guaranteed.
Finally, there is Michael Physick, the staff rep. Michael holds a non-voting role, and his place on Board is to ensure a level of University awareness of the Board's actions, as well as making sure that there's someone present who can clarify the university's position on issues.